I started out with a diagnostic of 148 and got 158 on my first administration before coming to 7Sage. Delayed applying for another year to relearn the foundation with the Core Curriculum and practiced for months on end. The progress took so long that there were many days when I felt there is no way I am getting to that 170 mark but alas! It may feel like it's not going to get better but I promise you, it will! Wish you all great success on this devilish test we call the LSAT and sending good energy to everyone applying this cycle :)
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I’ve noticed that in the more recent PTs (80+) the following question types show up more than others: flaw, weaken, NA, RRE, PSA, strengthen. Almost all of my incorrect answers have been one of these types. I’m trying to find a new way of looking at these questions and approaching them in the most efficient ways. The strategies in the CC only help to a certain point, does anyone have a good way of answering these question types? I am especially weak on weakening and RRE questions. I’m taking the October test so I am looking to hone these strategies in ASAP. Any advice would be helpful!!!
So I decided to take another year to do this again & aiming for June but after 9 months of doing nothing but work, study, repeat I think I burned myself out. Any advice for starting again? I don’t think studying 24/7 helped - it may have harmed actually. I’ve been trying to get back into studying the last couple weeks but have been unable to get myself to do it.
@ said:
I found that revisiting some of the fundamentals from the CC helped me. It seems like I was overthinking most questions due to the presumption that the 80s PTs are harder. I went back to basics and the root of the questions and went back to scoring how I previously was.
What did you go back to in the fundamentals for this to click? The lessons for each question type or a particular overarching lesson? How long did it take before you started scoring as you previously were?
Really liked (D) but didn't pick it because of "heavily invested." Are we supposed to make the assumption that heavily invested = rely upon? I feel like "heavily invested" can also mean businesses who invest their money into producing computer technology but don't necessarily use it themselves, hence do not rely upon their use. Did I overthink this or am I right in thinking this AC requires an assumption, how ever reasonable?
Hello, I'm taking the November LSAT which is just over two weeks away -- at what point did this section click and what advice would you give to get to that point? I used to think about LR as distinct question types but the past month or so I've noticed that almost all question types have similar patterns in their flaws (if argument-based). During BR I'm missing 2-3 but during timed sessions still missing about 7. Any advice for getting around not seeing the arguments clearly during timed practices? Sometimes there are stimuli that I just don't understand when timed but when I BR, it's like DUH! Of course! Any advice getting around that? Advice regarding timing for both LR and RC would be appreciated also. Thank you!
I am preparing for the October test (been studying for a year and a half) and I took PT 92 this past weekend, scored 169 (170 if the experimental LG had been the real one). RC is harder than previous PTs (I missed -5) but something even stranger is the LR section. I can't put my finger on it but the recent LR sections are more difficult and a bit scary during timed sessions even during the first 10-15 questions which in previous tests were lighter and practice for the difficult questions later in the section.
How should I prepare for October? Has anyone noticed the difference and what exactly is different? For me, it feels like the language is the issue in that not only is it more abstract but also unnecessarily convoluted, whereas previous PTs were worded fairly legibly and focused more on the formal logic behind the questions.
I am aiming for 173+ and I just need some help in figuring out my LR strategy. I think if I can conquer this new LR format and control RC a bit (even go to -3 from -5) my score would improve tremendously.
@ would love to attend!
Hello, can someone please explain how answer choice C supports the conclusion and how D does not?
Interested!
Would love to join!
No specifics about the test, just a general question regarding experimental sections. Are experimental sections used multiple times in different years? For example, if a section was included in an administration last year or 2 years ago etc., would its inclusion in a current administration mean it was experimental previously but is now the graded section OR would it be experimental again?
Why is C wrong? Wouldn't the uncertainty of who is handling the networks still be an issue if the government funded?
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
Hi everyone, I took the test two days ago and I’ve tried not to think about it but I‘m starting to feel that I didn’t do as well as I planned to. I think LG went well, I was confident about my answers except for one question. RC I feel okay about but given that this section has always varied for me (-5 to -8) I can’t say for sure. LR is the toss-up. I don’t know if you guys have experienced this but the questions seemed foreign and I just can’t pinpoint why. Usually in practice I’m able to eliminate and narrow down to two choices but for several questions I had three choices still remaining and couldn’t quite pinpoint the purpose of the stimulus. I felt this way about LR in August (first time taking) as well but at that point I thought perhaps I just didn’t have enough experience. Obviously I won’t know my score until December but I’m feeling bummed that the section I was most excited about I just couldn’t execute as planned.
With about two months to January, I am thinking about reading the Loophole — has this been helpful for any of you? My goal score is 170 and at this point I feel like maybe I should go back to the basics and try the sections untimed to guage my accuracy before continuing with timed practices. Would appreciate all advice! Thanks!
How do I stop myself from counting an answer choice out or feeling unsure thinking that it's too strong? I have a bad habit of doing this with answer choices that would absolutes. Even though I picked B, I thought "will ensure its elimination" was way too strong - I wanted something looser. Does anyone fall into this trap and if so, how to stop?
#help (Added by Admin)
Starting to stress out because my scores are regressing and October LSAT is exactly a month away. Scored 170 once and haven't been able to since, ranging between 164-169, 163 being the worst in the last few months. My original aim was 175 (aiming for T-14 schools) but after studying for more than a year, I'm just so tired. I feel like I have made so much progress in terms of understanding the test but my scores do not reflect this (although I scored 158 last two real exams so not reverting back to 150s is a good sign I guess). I am lowering my goal to 170 which is not a low score by any means but I'm afraid T-14 will not be possible for me with anything lower than this. What can I do to make sure I am able to score this on the real thing?
I think my main problem is not knowing what to do after BR and going through the wrong answers. I BR thoroughly and my BR scores are almost always in the mid-170s (although for PT 90 this past week was 168). I watch the explanations for questions I missed and I was unsure about. However, what do I do next? I have tried writing in the wrong answer journal the way to approach missed questions but I don't think they have helped. I take one test every Saturday and BR thoroughly but maybe I'm not doing the necessary studying and drilling the days between those PTs. The day I take the test should be the least hectic day, correct? At the moment, it feels like the most. How should I be studying or drilling on the days I'm not taking a PT? Should I go back to fundamentals, drill a question type or passage or take full section tests every day? Maybe I'm not taking enough section tests (I take maybe one or two the whole week) because whenever I start the full PT, it feels like oh shit what do I do now so maybe the section tests would be helpful in establishing good habits under timed conditions.
It feels like I am nearing the finish line but haven't achieved remotely what I set out to. Please help, any and all advice appreciated!
I knew B was too strong but picked it anyway because I did not interpret E as in the video.
"Nobel prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their disciplines."
I interpreted this to mean that those who have won a NP may have not deserved to win one, not that NOT winning a NP does not mean that scientists have not contributed to their disciplines.
I'm taking the LSAT in 2 days and yet I am not feeling nervous. It hasn't even registered that I am taking the LSAT, it just feels like I am taking any other practice test. I started RC section on PT 88 yesterday but midway through I just stopped. Usually, when I start a section I complete I never just stop. What can I do to re-energize myself? It's not a bad thing that I'm viewing this as any other test because that may actually help to mitigate anxiety the day of but the lack of energy is a problem. Any thoughts?
Hi everyone! I'm dedicating most of my time to achieving the highest LSAT score possible. However, I'm curious as to what role one's GPA plays in the admissions process. Are the LSAT and GPA of equivalent importance or can a higher LSAT compensate for a GPA that may fall at or slightly below the 25th percentile? I understand the process is subjective and depends on a case-by-case basis. I studied abroad for a semester and the overseas school's grading system is stricter than the way my home university transferred my semester GPA so I graduated with a 3.82 (magna cum laude) but LSAC has processed my cumulative GPA to be 3.78 (still magna cum laude). Will this .04 drop have a significant impact on my application? I identify as a minority but probably not URM and I will be applying to T-14 schools aiming for 171+ LSAT score.
PT 9, S2, Q12:
I was looking for an answer choice that said something along the lines of non-purebred dogs being just as expensive for reasons other than genetically determined abnormalities and thought B addressed that. Is A correct because it's stating that even if there are genetic abnormalities, it is not necessary to treat them through surgery and cost-intensive procedures because the overall health of the dogs is fine? What was wrong with my reasoning and why is B wrong?
PT 10, S1, Q16
Found this question difficult overall, still don't understand what I'm supposed to be looking for in the correct answer. Asteroid-collision with the Earth was the popular theory but new theory available so question stem is asking to weaken the asteroid-collision theory? If so, how does E weaken? #help
Hey guys! I'm taking the test tomorrow and I'm quite excited to take it (believe it or not). What are some ways to maintain positive energy levels and motivation going into the test and during? For me what has worked the most is quick meditation early in the morning and treating the test like four section tests instead of viewing it as a daunting 3-hour exam. The first time I took the exam I was blindsided by the order of the first section and that feeling lingered onto the remaining sections. NEVER AGAIN!
I'm going to do a few drills today and watch a movie and rest the remainder of the day.
Sending everyone taking the November test positive energy and manifesting that we all reach our goal scores! All the best :)
I'm confused on what ac B is trying to convey. Is it trying to state that he should not have inferred that just because some people did not like the segment, others must have OR is it stating that he should have inferred but did not that since some did not like the segment, others must have. I interpreted the latter which is why I eliminated the ac but if the former is true, this choice makes sense as the correct answer.
I'm most likely taking October test with the same goal so definitely interested! I would only be available during evenings though (7pm ET onwards).
I thought D also explains this because if resources for workers' safety has decreased, workers would be more careful knowing that they wouldn't be as protected. An unreasonable assumption?
I know this feeling all too well. Keep going, whatever you do, don't stop studying. The content sometimes marinates for a few weeks or even months before it just sets in. Four weeks is not enough time to be comfortable with timed conditions, that comes as soon as you feel comfortable and confident with the content so focus on accuracy first. Even if it takes you 12 minutes to finish five questions, focus on understanding the questions correctly and even if you get questions right but you can't explain why, look into that to make sure it wasn't just luck and you actually understand. Trying to focus on time before I established accuracy was one of the key mistakes I made when I first started studying.
Also, if you haven't already, spend a LOT of time establishing the foundations of Logic Games because it's the easiest section (imo) and you can then focus on the other two sections (which are harder but not impossible to improve).
This is incredible. Thanks for doing this, definitely interested!
Since mass can be determined by the brightness, if the brightness is lower than previously thought, shouldn't it be that the mass is also higher than previously thought? If the brightness was thought to be 40% and mass 50 but brightness is actually 20, wouldn't the mass also be less than 50, hence lower than previously thought?
I'm not sure I understand this question - what does 60 times less light mean? Is that supposed to be an absolute number? It seems pretty relative to me.
"not a problem in well-ventilated house but it is in well-insulated house" implies that a well-insulated house is not a well-ventilated house, hence D, correct? I picked E because I mistakenly read the well-ventilated as well-insulated in that a well-insulated house with a houseplant would have fewer toxins in the air than a well-insulated house without houseplants.
I've stared at this question for several minutes and I still don't understand what it's conveying and what it's asking as the question and expecting as the answer. Can someone explain this to me in very simple terms? Since the stimulus states that the last band is translucent, I connected that it would be in the winter but I'm not understanding the distinction between early winter and midwinter. What in the stimulus suggests that it is midwinter?
14: was tough for me because I didn't focus in on the "enforcement" -- A specifically mentions how those norms are enforced while B states what the norms in that community are, without any mention of how they are enforced (if at all).
20: for some reason I read this question stem as which one of the following does the passage support, instead of which of these supports the passage. This is basically a strengthen question and it would definitely give the argument more strength if there are consequences when those norms are not followed, which B exemplifies.
Question 7: is (E) wrong because it doesn't mention the entirety of what scientists are doing? They are playing an active role in the story but how? Is it wrong because it's missing what they actually do to play an active role?
#help (Added by Admin)
Definitely interested!
The question is asking us to support the modern historians' claim that Cali was not the cruel tyrant he is viewed to be because of few existing documentation and histories written by enemies.
A: This doesn't really answer anything - why is there a lack of documentation? Could be that dude was lazy and didn't like documenting or could also be that he was in fact a cruel tyrant and wanted his antics hidden from the record in which case this wouldn't support the historians at all
B: But who are the "people"? We have to make too many assumptions to tie this choice to the stimulus
C: got here through POE - still can't say for sure why it's right -- (please help)
D: but we already know that the little documentation that survives was written by Cali's enemies so what's new? Maybe this document is simply an example of the enemy's rage against Cali
E: So what? What relevance does this have? It'd be unfair to compare modern documentation methods to Cali's time
Anyway, this question sucks.
#HELP!
I took the October exam, scored 168 which wasn't too surprising since that had been my score on several PTs leading up to the test. I am signed up for next week & goal is to score 171+. Took the newly released PT 93 today & scored my highest ever, 175!!!!
I am super conflicted because if I take the test next week, it will be my 4th time & if I score lower than 168, I don't want admissions to think that the score is a fluke and not something I worked hard for. If I score higher than 170, great! However, is this a risk worth taking? For reference, I would like to attend a T20 school with substantial scholarships, looking at USC Law for which I fall right at the median LSAT but lower than median GPA.
@ said:
@ said:
Hi guys! What is the best way to approach RC? I tried the low resolution method which helped tremendously and I was able to raise my score from -12 to -3 to -5. However, I am aiming for 175 for October so I tried the Blueprint. It was helpful to learn about structure but now I find myself going back to the passage about 5-6 times because I get so focused on structure that I miss out on the content of the passage. I only went back to read referenced lines when I was using the low res method.
Is there a way to combine the two or approach the section another way to score -0 to -2 consistently? I think it can be done but only with the right approach. Thank you!
This comment might not be in the direction you were looking for, but if you're consistently scoring -3 on RC, I honestly would focus on getting the other two sections up, netting you a 175. What are your LR and LG scores? These two sections are a lot easier to improve quickly than RC, and I feel that you might have to spend a long time just to achieve 1-2 points of improvement. If you're getting a -0 on LG and -2 on LR, you have your goal score.
Basically, if you need a 175 by October, those few points are most likely not going to come that quickly with RC, and your time would be better spent perfecting the other two sections resulting in your goal score, since they are a lot easier to improve upon in the time frame you have.
With that being said, I think the low res method is great, and my recommendation would be to combine the two ways of thinking about RC (structure and content) and try to find a middle ground that works for you. Understand the main idea of every paragraph (write this down for your low res), understand the structure and where it fits in to the passage, and then move on. Before answering questions, understand the main point of the passage and the author's perspective if there is one.
The biggest thing is developing a strategy that works for you... try different things until you see improvement, because there are so many RC strategies and no true one size fits all method.
Hope this helps, and good luck! You got this!
This is actually great advice! I am fluctuating between that -3 to -5 score, scoring -6 or -7 on really bad days (when trying to use the new Blueprint method as I mentioned in the original post). However, I think combining the structure with my previous way of approaching passages (one-sentence low res summaries) will help me consistently score maximum misses of -3.
I feel I have been neglecting LG a bit because I used to score -0 to -1/-2 but now it's been -3 or -4 on bad days. LR has improved exponentially from a similar -10/-12 score to -2 to -4. I am starting to understand LR a lot more than before so I may spend more time on this section and bring my incorrect questions down to -1 or -2. LG I will start rigorously full-proofing since I have heard from many that it helps to bring the score down to -0 (which is what I'm aiming for).
Thanks for your advice!
@ said:
how long did it take you to get from -12 to -3/-5?
I was scoring -12 before going through the 7Sage Curriculum. After CC, maybe about 2-3 weeks to get to that -5 mark and more improvement to -3 a few more weeks after that.
Hi guys! What is the best way to approach RC? I tried the low resolution method which helped tremendously and I was able to raise my score from -12 to -3 to -5. However, I am aiming for 175 for October so I tried the Blueprint. It was helpful to learn about structure but now I find myself going back to the passage about 5-6 times because I get so focused on structure that I miss out on the content of the passage. I only went back to read referenced lines when I was using the low res method.
Is there a way to combine the two or approach the section another way to score -0 to -2 consistently? I think it can be done but only with the right approach. Thank you!
So in for this! Taking in October.
Work on timing for easier games as much as possible. Try to finish the first two games of a section in 12-14 minutes. Even on the harder games, it is possible to answer orientation and local diagram questions correctly. Practice games as much as you can, 10 days can be enough time to reach the 20-21/23 range. Best of luck!
Good question that I learned about while taking the PT timed. I was down to C and E and I assumed E was almost differentiating between the author's idea that things like confidence and knowledge matter to being a leader but the voters may not assess candidates in this same manner. BUT it isn't saying this is it? Even if knowledge does not affect voters, confidence might and that's where C connects the dot.
I picked C because I realized the idea that knowledge and confidence matter is a premise and we don't attack premises. Excessive blinking is directly tied to lack of confidence, thus weakening the argument.
I picked D over A but the reason I eliminated A is because it doesn't touch on the "deliberate" portion of the argument. However, the way it is explained in the video, it seems that the reason it is wrong is because "could be" is too weak to support "is." If A had said "it is manslaughter," would it be correct? #help (Added by Admin)
Hello! Is there a Zoom link out there currently within the 7Sage community that allows people to join in whenever they want while taking PTs? I think it would be super helpful to practice this way as to ease my nerves on the day of the actual test (I've realized it distracts me to think someone is watching me take the test).
Thank you!
I'm in! Aiming for 170+ for October.
Is B's only flaw that it says "almost everyone"? If it had said "at least some people said this but continued watching anyway," would it be correct?
In NA questions that have two more more assumptions, does the correct AC only need to cover one assumption for it to be correct? E doesn't cover the assumption that people who responded to the polls continued watching, it only covers the perception part of the argument.
Also, how should I approach arguments with several assumptions because I thought the assumption of "responded but continued watching" is the main assumption and the perception part is almost an afterthought.
#help (Added by Admin)