#feedback Some of these videos continue to not have the option to turn CCs off. It's covering some of the text and makes it hard to read.

Will this include the data and analytics that we have on this current platform or does it reset?

I'm LOVING this approach

Hey! I too am also out of school and will be in the 2-3 years out when applying in 2026 cycle. I want to preface that the following advice is what I personally have been told by multiple admissions officers and through research with the schools I am applying to. Some of it is also personal advice from my past cycle experience. So take it with a grain of salt :)

From what I have been told by admissions, you should still generally have at least 1 academic reference and then 1 professional reference. If you apply and you are more than 5 years out of undergrad, then admissions may make exceptions and allow only professional references.

When it comes to who to ask- I would ask a professor that knows you well. Maybe you had more than 1 class with them, or during that class you went to office hours a lot, participated well, etc. It should be someone who can really speak to your academic capabilities.

For professional references- a current boss is great, or a recent boss from a college job possibly may work, but it should be someone who can attest to your current professional capabilities.

In terms of how to ask- what I did was email a prof I was going to ask and set up a time to meet via Zoom. I shared updates on what I do now and why I am still interested in law school. I would also go over WHAT you are looking for in their letter. Are there particular strengths you have that you showcased as a student that they can attest to?

I hope this helps! P.S GTHC and Go Pack!

Well played LSAC

LMAO thank you for this

I've struggled with this as well. Something that has helped me has been focusing heavily on low-res summary work. When you are truly working to understand the key points, functions, etc. it helps so much. I found that you can also spot the "fluff" that LSAC throws into some of the passages. As you start to see that, I've found that sometimes you just have to skim certain parts. As long as you know the structure, where things are located, Author's perspective, etc. you'll do well and will have time to go back to the passage because you're going to be acing the questions.

Nothing to add from the previous two comments other than I'd also recommend taking a week off. When I've hit plateaus, I have found a short break to be incredibly helpful in working through burnout and fatigue.

I've taken it online for 3 administrations and I will say, the proctoring service they use is not good. I had two terrible experiences where the proctor didn't even show up after the timed break, and also didn't let me test in an approved area that I scanned. I've seen a lot of similar stories attesting to the bad proctoring. Now, if you can rebound from potential distractions and things not going to plan, then sure, online offers flexibility.

I've chosen to test in person for my next test and that's mainly because of the proctoring issues. Testing in person feels more normal than the alternative and I've heard generally, it's without too many errors.

All this is to say that at the end of the day, it's up to you. If you're planning to test online, I'd recommend testing in an environment just like the real one (alone, no windows, clean space, quiet, etc.) and if you choose in-person, maybe you can take it in a public library or something of the sort to simulate being around others to help prevent that distraction.

Hope this can help. If anyone can add more to the in-person experience, I'm sure that would be a welcomed perspective

https://www.lsac.org/LSATdates. Scheduling for the April LSAT doesn't open until March 25th, so you will get an email then

I didn't find the study schedule to be super helpful. It's certainly all about what works for you though. What I've done is I went all the way through the curriculum, then took a PT. After that, I've been reviewing the analytics, practicing drills, reviewing lessons, and PTs. There's a lot of resources but I've found success in splitting time between drills, supplementary lessons, and PTs.

Tracking your performance and learning why you're getting things wrong is super helpful. I'd recommend using a wrong answer journal and consistently reviewing that as well. Good luck!

Agree with the note above about building the skills through the classes you take, material you read, etc. Take a logic class if you can (typically in the philosophy department.) I would caution against actual LSAT material and/or intense studying so early, though. Enjoy college! And strengthen your GPA as much as you can.

I appreciate the humor sprinkled throughout these lessons. It feels good to be able to laugh while studying for the LSAT.

"Fuck yo couch" I'm DEAD

In terms of strategy, there's a couple of things that I do that have worked for me:

When reading the stimulus, I think about the argument and what claims are being made. It's important to understand the argument.

I normally due process of elimination (POE) because it's quick and generally, if you can find the wrong answers, you're lead to the right one with little effort.

Strengthen doesn't have to be a HUGE lift. It's just something that a) does not WEAKEN the argument and b) supports the claim in SOME way, big or small.

Avoid ACs that involve unrealistic assumptions.

I'd recommend doing untimed drills with strengthen Qs and as you truly build mastery, you'll see progress then you can add in timing.

Good luck man! You've got this

In essence you're looking for a required assumption that must be true in order for the argument to hold up. It's something that they do not explicitly state but hold to be true in order for their argument to be valid.

In terms of what the question stem is asking you to do, you're essentially plugging in the ACs that are provided and seeing what is required. If you negate it and say "X is NOT ..." and the argument falls apart, that is your correct answer.

I hope this helps and answers your question. Here's a link to an article that talks about it and also includes strategy: https://www.thinkinglsat.com/articles/how-to-solve-necessary-assumption-questions

I'd focus on doing drills or even sections untimed. This will help you practice the MATERIAL rather than the TEST. By doing this, you will build mastery of the concepts, then you can add in timing and strategy. I'd also pause on the PTs, but I know that's a controversial opinion.

This was such a breath of fresh air. Thank you for sharing and helping us remember WHY we are doing this. This was a lot of fun!

Life goal is to be as tough as the surrounding grass. Good explanation though. This is helpful

They certainly do overlap a bit. If I had to explain it, I'd say this is the difference:

Flaws: it's about how the argument is functioning (is there something wrong with the structure, weak evidence, assumptions, etc)

-When approaching flaws, you're more so looking at the options and seeing what matches with what the argument does. It can't be the flaw if the argument doesn't commit it.

Weaken: it's much more broad and strictly about impacting the support between the Premises and the Conclusion. You can weaken with a flaw for sure.

-When approaching weakening Qs, you're looking for what impacts the relationship based on the stated ACs. You plug and chug and see what weakens the argument.

I apologize if any of this feels repetitive. They certainly overlap, there are just a few subtle differences in approach from what I've noticed.

Ending the study session with a 5/5 BLESS

I'm assuming you're referring to it being listed as experimental on the review results page. There's not really a way around it because of course we don't know which section is the unscored section when we're testing. What I would do though is examine the trends in why you're getting questions wrong and see if the same questions are in the unscored section from the specific PT and think about why you're getting them right there instead. Not sure if this helps but I've found tracking trends and doing a wrong answer journal to be helpful so you can be consistent.

I would highly recommend getting through all the intro material first, then once you've gotten to question types for LR and RC, you can drill on those in tandem with the lessons. That is what I did and it allowed me to have both lessons and practice drills to reinforce what I was actively learning. It is critical however, that you go through the intro lessons first. The foundations are so important and without spending time there, you may miss questions in drills that you otherwise wouldn't.