Hi everyone.

Over the past few months of my studying I’ve started to feel much more confident when it comes to the difficulty and pace of the logical reasoning questions. I’ve been making minimal, if any, errors on questions that are levels 1-3.

But now that I’ve been focusing more on questions that are exclusively levels 4-5 in difficulty, I’ve reached a slight roadblock. On questions I do get incorrect it's typically when I’ve been debating between two possible answers. I’ll do a blind review for these questions, and when I select my “second choice” answer, 90% of the time I end up getting that question correct.

I was wondering if anyone has experienced similar obstacles when it comes to choosing the “best” answer. I was wondering if anyone had advice on how to recognize which answer is best when you’re stuck between two options, especially when the answers are very similar. Is there a trick to narrow down the answer options or will it simply come down to practice and pattern/question type recognition?

Thank you so much! Any advice helps!

I've heard that reading nonfiction or scholarly articles can be helpful when preparing for RC since it gets you used to comprehending dense (and sometimes boring) material quickly. Does anyone have recommendations of books/articles/websites that really helped with RC?

Hi All,

Anyone else having trouble registering at a nearby Prometric center? The closest available options for me are 100+ miles away, even though there’s one right down the road. I’m guessing they’re releasing seats slowly — does anyone know if more open up closer to the test date? If not, I’ll probably switch to remote.

Quick heads up that our weekly lo-fi LSAT stream runs again tonight from 5 to 8 PM ET on YouTube. Free, no signup, just join here: https://youtube.com/live/_G77R2xupeU?feature=share

Starting with PT140, Mikey's working through unseen LSAT questions live, talking through strategies and notes as he goes. Ambient music in the background, baby animal clips mixed in. Super chill vibes.

Good for studying alongside, following question by question, or just having the LSAT on while you do other work.

We're running it on Tuesdays. See you tonight!

I've honestly been inconsistenly studying on and offer 2 years :/ I score at 154 on average. I really want to take studying more seriously, hoping to take my first LSAT in the fall but im not sure how to study.

As of now, im trying to really understand question types... and be better at answering based on those (obvious I know, but I do think this is absolutely necessary) but idk what else I should do. I know I must blind review and keep a wrong answer journal--which I do, but I sort of like to be more active in studying idk...help!!

I feel like I could cry! From beginning at 148, getting stuck in 160s hell, and now this! Studying for the LSAT over the past months has definitely felt like an exercise in patience and endurance, but I'm happy with the progress I've been making!

I am an independent tutor with a 178 on the January 2026 test. I am going to be offering paid 1 on 1 services on here soon, but want to start with (and sustain) free Q&A and collaboration as well. If anyone wants to start tonight, feel free to jump on with any kind of questions you've had lately. I'll answer as much as I can in an hour, and then we'll probably shift to a regular Wednesday time for the rest of the spring/summer.

The value of this study group to me is to get acquainted with how 7sage students are looking at this test, to provide some help, and to get some feedback. I hope it is at least as valuable to you if you have questions you want to go over!

No matter what direction I go with paid lessons, I will hold this study group weekly for free at least through September.

We'll either meet on this platform or on my Zoom depending on preferences of the group.

Hey all,

Quick heads up on where the podcast is going. If you've listened to last week's or this week's episode, you may have noticed a shift in our format.

The short version: we're covering the whole path now, not just the LSAT. Applications, scholarship negotiation, personal statements, picking a school, paying for it, what 1L is actually like, etc. We're planning to have multiple segments every episode highlighting different aspects of the journey. Although we're still feeling it out, I think our most consistent episode format will be: LSAT advice segment, LSAT journey, Admissions Q/A. We're also going to be featuring some longer form interviews with special guests in the LSAT, law school and legal arenas.

A few things I want from you.

First, what do you think of the new direction? Honest reactions welcome, including if you preferred the old LSAT-centric format. Any suggestions are welcome!

Second, tell me what to cover. What's the question you can't get a real answer to? What do you wish someone would just sit down and explain?

And if you've got a specific question you want answered on air, send that too. We'll pull from the thread for future episodes.

Reply here or DM me.

Alex

Hello everyone,

I know for many question stems, especially flaw Q's, the answer choices begins with "takes for granted, " "overlooks the possibility," presumes without justification," etc.

For these type of answer choices, can we apply the negation test and see if it destroys the argument?

The question type is not a strict "Necessary Assumption" question, but the answer choices are phrased as "Takes for granted"/assumptions, so can we treat them as similar to how we treat a necessary assumption answer choice -- and negate them?

Thanks!

Hello! I take the LSAT in June and have been studying for around 4-5 months. For LR, I am getting almost every 3 and below level difficulty correct. However, I tend to not do as well on the 4 and 5 star questions. How do I get better at the harder questions? What makes those questions so much more difficult?

Thank you!

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a tutor to help me break into the 170s. I recently took a practice test and scored a 163, with a 170 on blind review, so I know the score is in there and I just need help closing the gap.

I’m currently studying 30 minutes to an hour, five days a week, and I’m looking to meet with a tutor once a week for an hour. My target test date is later this year, though I’m willing to push it back until I’m consistently hitting my goal range.

I do have an LSAC fee waiver, so I’m hoping to find someone with lower rates or who offers a discount.

If you have availability and offer a free intro call or consultation, please don’t hesitate to reach out. I’d love to find someone who’s a good fit. Thanks!

Despite constant drilling and blind review, my timed PT scores stay mostly in the mid 150s for weeks. Don’t know what else to do. It’s so frustrating. If anyone has any advice, please comment!! I need your help ;(

I’ve scored 170+ on PT144 and PT147, but not by a whole lot. I’m hoping to score above a 170 on my June LSAT, but I’m getting pretty nervous that the prep tests I’m using aren’t going to reflect the difficulty of the test come test day (I hear they’ve gotten harder). Does anyone know how these tests in particular stack up to what’s been on offer in recent tests? And should I be using newer PTs at this point?

Would anyone be interested in taking collaborative practice tests or sections? In the high school classes that I teach, one thing my professional learning community (team) does is we have our students take a multiple choice test, then we group them by score and have them take the test again as a group, but in the following highly structured way: Person 1 reads the question, Person 2 answers, Person 3 agrees or disagrees, and Person 4 restates and re-explains, and the roles rotate every question. We have seen marked improvement in their overall thought processes throughout the year. A critical component is that they do not know the official test answers (or their grades, but that's not really possible here on this platform) on their second pass of the test. I am not sure if this specific set of roles is perfect for the LSAT, but I think it could be interesting to workshop. Let me know your thoughts!

Since it is Sawyer who is negotiating for the city government, it must be true that the city takes the matter seriously. After all, if Sawyer had not been available, the city would have insisted that the negotiations be deferred.

I cannot figure out how to translate this to lawgic in a way that makes it a valid argument. It feels valid and seems valid, even if its maybe not super strong, but seems valid nonetheless.

I tried

/(Sawyer available) -> city defers negotiations

Sawyer is negotiating

???

------------------------

city takes the matter seriously

After doing a test section or adaptive questions in the lesson plans I often do my own math to see what my average time per question was, my overall time gained/lost was, etc. Would be cool to have these built in.

Curious how everyone would do this. Try telling me before reading all this, or even just skip reading what I did, I really am curious purely what shorthand everyone uses for conversions.

Ok I just started learning about lawgic and came back to this question. I need some help.

I'm convinced mapping to lowgic is the fastest way to do this in the long run. But currently, I'm really slow at it. I just spend 5:30 on this question!

My problem is reading and mapping to the same thing deterministically. For this question I accidentally mapped like this:

Turned "price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase" into "GC" for "Greater Cost", and "the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices" into "GP" for "Greater Price". So, GC -> GP. So far so good.

Then "either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease" into "NC | DS" for "Non Coffee OR Decreased Sale". So now I have GP -> NC | DS.

Then I turned "decrease the Coffee Shoppe's overall profitability" into "DP" for "Decreased Profitability". So now NC -> DP

Then I turned "can avoid a decrease in overall profitability" into "/DOP" for "NOT Decreased Overall Profitability" and "coffee sales do not decrease" into "/DCS" for "NOT Decreased Coffee Sales". Notice this is where I messed up. I mapped things I had already defined into new acronyms. I had:

GC -> GP

GP -> NC | DS

NC -> DP

/DOP -> /DCS

But I should have had:

GC -> GP

GP -> NC | DS

NC -> DP

/DP -> /DS

Now its obvious that

DS -> DP, and since also NC -> DP, then now NC | DS can just be set to DP, giving:

GC -> GP

GP -> DP

Therefore GC -> DP, and back to english is "If cost of beans increase, Shoppe will have decreased profits", which is exactly what C says, so it took me 3 seconds to find that. But getting to GC -> DP was the key.

...So how do I make that faster, and how do I avoid mistakes like mapping the same thing to two different lawgic acronyms? That is what took all my time to realize I had done that, which is why nothing was coming out of the original mappings I had. Maybe there is better shorthand to use that would help me be more clear, but also short enough to be fast still?

I will try again now after writing all this:

Mapping First:

Bean price increases -> Shoppe increases prices

Shoppe increases prices -> Sells NCP | CSD

Sells NCP -> DOP

/DOP -> /CSD

------------------------

Now Transformation:

CSD -> DOP

Sells NCP | CSD -> DOP

Shoppe increases prices -> DOP

Bean price increases -> DOP

"If bean prices increase, then Coffee Shoppe will have a Decrease in Overall Profitibility", answer C.

...Ok that was a bit faster, but typing was slow, probably faster on paper. Still trying to find that balance of clarity and brevity. If a person could just instantly map this all to something like

BPI -> SIP

SIP -> NCP | CSD

NCP -> DOP

/DOP -> /CSD

-------------------------

CSD -> DOP

NCP | CSD -> DOP

-------------------------

BPI -> SIP -> DOP

BPI -> DOP

-------------------------

"if Bean Price Increases, then Decrease in Overall Profitability", answer C.

That would be soooo fast. That is my goal. Acronyms are so much faster to read and move around in lawgic, but how important is retaining the context of each in your voice in your head? Curious what everyone would do and if you actually read everything I did, thank you and I would love to hear what I can do to improve so I can do this without even thinking.

Congratulations to our May Community Lottery winners!

1. @Hfa

2. @Gregmjr

3. @TheBigFatPanda

4. @k13lawwwwww

5. @Bobby68

6. @sol_chan

7. @Catpop

8. @monmon

9. @elinaaa

10. @DaisukeKaga

Your $50 gift cards are on their way!

Want to win in June? Post or comment on the forums, add a profile picture, and track your applications if you've applied to schools this cycle—that's it!

Learning and practicing the lawgic stuff. I promise this is the last one for tonight (its 1:30 am).

Given:

If Wong is appointed arbitrator, a decision will be reached promptly. Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator, a prompt decision can reasonably be expected.

I did:

Wong -> Prompt

/Wong -> Absurd

[assumption] /Absurd

--------------------

Wong

--------------------

Prompt

In other words, there is like an intermediate assumption and subconclusion or something happening. We have "if Wong is not chosen as arbitrator, it would be absurd" [assumption] "we are not absurd", therefore, Wong is implicitly chosen. And since Wong -> Prompt, therefore, Prompt!

I have just not seen the lecturer or anyone do a notation yet for this assumption or intermediate conclusion stuff yet. Is there a defined way to do this I should follow?

Would it be possible to toggle off the info about why a question was included for blind review? I know it doesn't show the reason unless you hover over the (i) icon, but I often lack the self restraint not to look and then change my answer if the question was included in BR when I got it wrong whereas I otherwise might not have changed my AC. It would be great if I could make it so it's not even an option for me to see why the question was included in BR until after I've completed BR. Thanks!

Hello,

I'm looking to create a small, committed study group of people who are based in New York City and are taking the August LSAT. In order for this to be as effective as possible I ask that you only reach out if the following apply to you:

1) Scoring at least 155 on PTs

2) Age 22+ / Done with undergrad

3) Able to meet once a week, in person, in Manhattan

4) Able to commit to one study session a week

I am 25, based on the Lower East Side, and have a standard 9-5 job. I'm currently scoring in the low 160s and would like to bump my score as close to 180 as possible.

Looking forward to meeting!

Best,

Subhash

I studied harder for the LSAT than anything in my life. But despite putting in the hours, reviewing questions, and understanding why I got them wrong, there were still months where I would not improve before eventually going from a 151 to a 177. The issue was that I couldn't see my own blind spots, the mental habits that were costing me points as I worked through questions. That's the problem coaching solves. There are a lot of great resources for learning the LSAT. What distinguishes coaching is that it gives you someone who focuses on your specific thought process, identifying your blind spots and building habits that get you to the right answer as efficiently as possible.

Before every session, I go through your 7Sage analytics and drill data to identify the exact skill that's costing you points. Every LR question tests one of three core skills, and once we know which one is breaking — and how it's breaking — I build targeted drill sets and a specific study plan for the week ahead. Between sessions, you get a detailed follow-up email with your plan and mid-week check-ins to make sure things are tracking.

I don't just explain questions to you. I teach you how to figure out what went wrong on your own, so the 20+ hours a week you study without me are actually effective. As one student put it: "He teaches you how to fish."

Before our first session we will have a 15–25 minute consultation call. Shoot me a text to schedule, my number is 801-645-3233. Sessions are over Zoom, usually 90 minutes. If after our first session you don't want to continue I will give you a full refund.

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a serious and consistent study partner for the October LSAT. I currently work full-time, so I usually study either in the mornings or late evenings.

I’m located in Santa Cruz, so local would be great, but I’m totally open to studying online too. Ideally, looking for someone who wants to stay accountable, review practice questions/tests together, discuss strategies, and keep each other motivated through the next few months. :)))

When my internet cuts out momentarily and is working to reconnect, the timer continues to count down despite the rest of the page being unusable (so I can't pause the timer manually). Is possible to program the timer to pause automatically when there are connection issues that interfere with the rest of the page?

Thank you for all your hard work!!

Hi everyone, I'm Dalia! I'm offering affordable LSAT tutoring for students at any stage of their LSAT journey. Whether you're about to take the test for the first time, trying to break out of a plateau, or looking to reach the 170+ range, I can help! I've got over 5 years of experience tutoring various subjects and scored a 171 on my LSAT. Also, for the past year, I've been a teaching assistant for Introductory Logic at my university, helping students understand formal logic from scratch.

One cool promotion that I offer is a $10, 25-minute sample tutoring session - we'll work through a few practice questions so you can see if tutoring would be a good fit for you.

Additional features:

• Flexible online sessions that work for your busy schedule.

• Affordable lessons ($40 per hour) with bulk discount options.

• Payment options in CAD or USD.

• You can bring your own questions to a session or follow a personalized lesson plan I create for you, or both – the choice is yours!

If you're interested, leave a comment down below or send me a message and I'll DM you soon.

Looking forward to working with you! :)