Hey! I’m 25 and based in Toronto, planning to write the LSAT in October. I’ve been stuck in the mid-150s and looking for a study buddy or small group to meet up in person — libraries, coffee shops, etc. Would be great to have someone to stay consistent with, go over questions together, and keep each other accountable and motivated.

If you’re also prepping and want to team up, send me a message!

Do we blind review every section? So basically review all of our circled questions, maybe even re-read the reading comp passages at a slower pace to confirm answer choices etc.? We basically can review the whole test at a slow untimed pace? THEN check our answers?

Also for full length PT's do you blind review the same day you took it or the day after? What do you think is more useful? Obviously when I am doing section drilling I will BR immediately after.

Any advice would be awesome! Thanks!!!!!

I have spent half of a year actively studying with 7Sage. I studied for a month in December last year (LR core) and have been consistently studying since May (full-time, 30 hours a week, till August and part time, 5-10 hours, since then). I scored a 144 on a diagnostic test on Khan Academy before 7Sage. My goal score is above a 170.

I did well on my first few practice tests beginning in September. My first PT was a 160 and my second test was a 167 (1 wrong on each of LR and LG, 9 wrong on reading); Dominating LR and LG while flunking reading was the norm for a while (with an all time high score of 168), so I was confident that everything would resolve itself once I aced RC.

Since then, my scores have consistently fallen with my last two tests being a 164 and a low of 162, despite learning the reading portion of the curriculum. The PTs I've done are from the mid 30s to 49, but I've only done about half of those, using the rest for more drilling. One possible explanation is that a few of my PTs were 3 section ones (but not my first 167) and I only recently switched back to 4 section PTs.

I don't think I'm burned out because I feel motivated to study. However, I do think I'm stuck in a cycle of rust because I only have time to do a few hours a week of studying (5-10 hours) due to my job. I either have to choose between reviewing mistakes for a couple sections or timed practice. For example, I brought my RC score down to below 5 consistently for a few section drills, but this investment caused my LG and LR scores to slip due to lack of time to practice these.

I have more time to study this week but long term, what do I do, besides building endurance by doing 4 section PTs? Though my RC score has improved, RC is still my worst section; but I also need work on LR and LG. And within each of these sections, I miss each question type at a similar rate, including a handful of easier questions, so it's not like all my problems are solved by drilling one question or game type.

My initial thought is do more fool-proofing in LG and do more blind review and wrong answer journaling/reviewing in LR. No clue what to do to improve RC though: my performance in that section feels random.

Hi guys! So I spent the summer working through the 7Sage lesson prep and now am at the stage where I just drill PT's and review them. BUT I am a junior in college who is majoring in Finance and a minor in Econ aka a lot of course load. I also am in a frat and want to join an extra finance club but any suggestions on time management? I am thinking about definitely taking a test every friday and reviewing it sat/sunday. Then taking another test on like monday but taking the tuesday-thursday to review it (i.e. in between my classes and when I have a spare hour) granted there will be weeks that I can't get both tests in can I just get advice from anyone else who has had success balancing work/school with LSAT studying? BTW I am taking the LSAT in February of 2014. Any advice would help!!

JY mentioned that he would go over the difference "later," but I couldn't find it...

Does anyone know where this lesson is, and/or can explain the difference to me?

Thanks!

Is anyone near Savannah, GA or Hilton Head Island, SC studying for the September or December LSAT? I'm hoping to find someone to prep with.

I normally score pretty well on my lsat, however like a lot of people I did horribly on the lg. my question is if I score for the sake of arguing that I score 146 , but in December I score 166, what are my chances of getting into a good school?

To help with my studies, I am reading books to practice some of the things taught in the V.2 curriculum. I am reading a book called Political Tribes by Amy Chua. On page 91 it states the following " Experts today agree that merely deploying twenty thousand additional troops would not have been sufficient had American commanders not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it..."

I think this sentence is similar to PT 64.1.18.

The way I would translate to a conditional would be

If not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it.." then, deploying 20k would have not been sufficient

or

If it was sufficient then they stopped fighting or started to cooperate with it

Any insight on this would be great!

An old boss of mine has agreed to provide me a LOR but was asking for some guidance on the finer points like:

Also if anyone has samples of strong LOR from an employer, I'd love to see them.

Thanks!

In lesson 2 of Assumption and Weakening questions, J.Y. stated, "Bear in mind that most arguments in real life and on the LSAT do not have a valid relationship." A deeper explanation at this early stage will be very helpful to me. I am particularly interested in the "real-life" side of this argument, but also what this means for the LSAT as I work through this section.

Can someone provide a deeper explanation of this statement?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/good-v-bad-arguments/?ss_completed_lesson=1003

7Sage Website Gods,

I love being able to take the PT1-35 LG sections timed and then easily check answers after BRing them by clicking on Resources > Logic Game Explanations.

I would love to be able to do the same thing as I work on LR sections from those same tests. I have the questions already, but to find answers, I have to "score" a PT for the relevant test, then find the question explanation links, then afterwards delete the "scored" PT from my history so it doesn't throw off my analytics.

Any chance you could add a page that would only be visible based on your membership level, and that is formatted like the LG Explanations page, but for LR questions?

If such a resource already exists, or there is an easier way than my current solution, and I just haven't found it, could you point me in the right direction?

Many thanks,

-Joe

What does 1 on 1 tutoring do for one's score/test strategy? At what point and how would one decide its worth the expense?

Does anyone have any advice for notetaking/annotation for online LSAT? It seems so much more time consuming to use online functions than to simply underline on a paper test. Just looking for some helpful information before my test.

Hey y'all!

Hope everyone is having a great week. I know many of you are waiting for your June scores, and so this week I wrote about what to do while you wait-- I hope it's helpful! You can find the newsletter here: https://7sage.substack.com/p/youve-taken-the-lsat-now-what

If you're interested in learning more about our tutoring services, you can learn more here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat-tutoring/

If you'd like to talk to one of our tutors before getting started, you can find free consultations here: https://calendly.com/7sage-consult/7sage-tutoring-free-consult

This question is a little complicated to parse because their are two agents in the discussion, the nation who may attack (Potential Aggressor [PA]) and the nation who may be attacked (Target). Clarifying who is who helps set up the lawgic from the stimulus.

In the stimulus you get:

PAs having Fear of Retaliation implies that PAs will hesitate to attack (PAFR -> PAHesitate)

PAFR also implies that PAs are deterred (PAFR -> DetersPAs)

You also get this, which is very unweildy:

if PA thinks Target has great retaliatory power then PA thinks it CANNOT defend itself

(PAThinkTargetHasRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend)

an inference we can make right away is:

if /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR

if PAs think they CANNOT defend against retaliation then PAs have a fear of retaliation

Now we apply valid argument form 3 - Transitive:

PAThinksTargetHasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR -> DetersPAs & PAHesitate

Is there an answer choice that leverages the first step in order to optimize the final step? D does.

D: if you want deterrence, tell everyone about your great retaliatory power (because of the lawgic from the stimulus).

A: says "DeterPAs -> /PAThinkCanDefend" which confuses the given sufficient and necessary elements

B: says "PAThinksPA(self)HasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> DetersPAs" and the stimulus doesn't say anything about that first part

C: assumes nations always attack unless deterred, which common sense indicates is probably false (hopefully) But aside from real world knowledge, it says "if PAHesitate -> /PAThinkCanDefend" (if PA hesitates then PA thinks it can't defend against retaliation). What we can say is that SOME PAs that hesitate were deterred. This answer choice is the same as A in its error.

E: We don’t know that retaliatory force has to be GREATER, only that it has to be “so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.” Also, superlatives like "maximum" give me pause and seem to appear in false answer choices often.

Hi,

Is anyone currently in NY preparing for the June LSAT? I wanted to see if y'all wanted to started a group chat for any last minute preparations. This will also help for anyone who has questions during the cycle this year we can all give support to one another.

Was there a separate session on embedded conditional reasoning?

Just took a practice test and proceeded to the Blind Review after.

How representative is the score of the Blind Review to my overall success of taking that PT? Should I expect growth to that score?

Hi 7sage,

I have been scoring between 160-163 on most of the PTs. On all of the PTs 80s I have score above 160 and up. Average is 161. But every time I do the PTs above the 90s, the newest ones from 2020, I always score in the upper 150s.

My question is: are the PTs in the 90s unusually harder? The RC section in PT 91 is mind-blowing hard and it felt abnormally harder than any other PT I have ever taken.

Thanks!

Anyone currently in undergrad at UMKC and looking at going to law school there as well? I am about to start my final year of undergrad and I am currently studying for my October LSAT. About me: I am 32 years old and am a Marine Corps Veteran who is excited to become a father in February next year.

For this question answer choice C is correct which makes sense to me. I picked D because I thought the analogy between car technology and computer technology worked well. My question is: are answer choices with analogies usually wrong on strengthening questions? OR does it just depend on the question?

This is not really helping me to diagnose weaknesses: I got 7/7 in one 4-star Law RC and missed 2 on a much easier Law RC on the same Pt.

AND: the harder one was the final section of the RC and the final section of the test so in theory I should have been more tired. So I can rule that out as a possible explanation.

Not really a question; it's just kind of mystifying!

Ever found yourself looking for a lesson on a particular topic? Now our lessons page lets you search across lesson titles and content.

Happy studying!

wanting to get into the 160s what can be done to reach that score