Hi, I've been hitting the mid-high 160's and I'm finding my core weakness is not understanding what the ACs are saying. This means the AC is using hard referential phrasing, or weird grammar like using embedded clauses without commas / run-on sentences, or the wording is just ambiguous.

I'm trying to parse the sentence piece by piece in my BR, but does anyone have any help for this issue?

My solutions so far are: parse word by word / phrase by phrase in BR, reduce the AC down to subject verb object. This is still really hard and I miss a lot of questions just because I don't know what the AC is trying to tell me. Thanks!

Hey everyone, so I graduated university in May of 2025. I had trouble with the 2026 application cycle because adult life got in the way. Now, I am back at it trying to get everything perfected to reapply this October 2026. I am looking at my portfolio as a whole and I had a minor concern.

My letters of recommendation are from my undergraduate mock trial coach, my lawyer mentor, and one of my uni professors. I was wondering if that is a bad look now that I am a year post-grad? I do not work in the legal field currently, so I have not made any new relevant connections. Do you think my current letters of recommendation good or should I be looking at revamping these too? I wouldn't even know where to look - so any and all advice would be SO APPRECIATED.

Thanks!

During my blind-review sections or untimed sections I average -3, yet on timed sections I average -7/-8 which on a bad day can be -10. I don't understand how to close the gap. I've read Loophole and am trying to find patterns but sometimes the questions just throw me for a loop or have subtle distinctions from the right answer choice. Any successful methods of closing this gap and improving speed?

Can someone please explain?

Hi I have a question for Kevin and JY. I just saw this and I wanted to ask how 7sage is adjusting

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

Hi!

I have written and revised and looked at my personal statement what seems like HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

I don't feel comfortable sharing it with those close to me, so I was hoping that maybe we could do a swap! I was going through the PS curriculum here on 7Sage and it advises to have multiple people review your PS.

Would anyone be interested in this?

If you are, I would be willing to read yours and give you feedback as well!! Please message me! I'm looking for 4-5 people so I can have many people review it!

Thanks :D

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

I originally planned on taking the LSAT in December but since then have decided to push it back until June and upgraded to the ultimate package. I am hoping to get some advice on choosing the right schools to apply. I realize it is a bit early to ask this question but I already signed up for CAS on the LSAC website and my email has been blowing up from many different schools. I knew there were a ton of schools out there but woah the amount of emails I have received is a bit overwhelming. I have 2 main focuses in choosing a school. The first is a scholarship and the second is finding a school that has a program and/or clinic for child advocacy law or juvenile law. The first focus I understand will depend greatly on my LSAT score but also finding a decently generous school. The second focus is important to me because I would really like to find a school I can get involved in what I am interested in. I really want to help kids and plan to focus primarily on child advocacy, juvenile and adoption law. I have done a lot of research and have found a few schools that I have my eye on but I am curious if anyone knows of any schools with these programs. Or at least have any advice on how to narrow down schools. Is there a recommendation on the amount of law schools to apply to? I was granted a fee waiver and have already received application fee waivers from some schools so I wonder, if there is no fee then, would it hurt to apply to many different schools and see what kind of scholarships I receive? I have talked to some family and friends on the subject and I am curious what my fellow 7sagers think on the subject. Thanks so much :)

Is there anything I should do to prep myself for the change of LSAT format from a written test to a tablet test?

I have been doing preptests by only having scrap sheets to write on,

Hi there!

I was wondering if anyone in the Boston area needed a study buddy. I'm currently signed up for the February test, but don't think I've studied adequately enough, so I'll likely cancel my score and take the June test. If meeting in person doesn't work for you, I'm happy to call via Skype or another online platform. I'd ideally like to take one practice test per week (I don't have too much time as a full-time student), and I'd want to review questions together and maybe exchange studying strategies.

My goal is 170+ but I'm currently hovering in the 160 range with BRs in the upper 160s. Since I've been self-studying this entire time, I thought working with a buddy might freshen things up and provide a new perspective. I know there are larger studying groups happening at the moment, but I think working one-on-one or in a small group might be best for me.

Feel free to message me!

Anyone recall any games with bi-conditional rules similar to Game 4 in PT69 and Game 2 PT56?

Also, if anyone happens know of any sequencing games that incorporate bi-conditional rules that would be helpful too.

Thanks!

If you're willing to trade personal or diversity statements with other 7Sagers, please comment below. Once we have some interested parties, we can PM each other and offer constructive comments. Good luck to everyone preparing applications for this cycle!

P.S. I'm interested in swapping. PM me your statements!

Would one W on my transcript taint my applications - particularly for t-14 schools?

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

Hi,

So I am just really lost on why the right answer here was B instead of A. Can anyone explain why B is right and A is wrong?

When looking at the question, I focused primarily on the last two sentences of passage A (kinda treated those last two sentences as a LR question).

As a result, A looked like it weakened the argument passage A gives in these last two sentences because it created a reason for the phenomena (of rich people usually paying about the same under progressive tax as they would under flat tax) to be surprising (and thus less "unsurprising").

In addition, I just didn't see how B weakens the idea that this phenomena was "unsurprising", and as a result, I thought B was incorrect.

#HELP

Thanks!

I understand the whole formal logic chain, pretty simple, however I do not understand why the last sentence is added to the end of the chain (a necessary condition) when the sentence starts out as 'The only', which implies sufficiency. Not sure for legal reasons if I am able to post the actual question on here, but I am more the welcome to if somebody if willing to assist me. Thanks!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, you are correct - please do not post the entire actual question in forums for LSAC/legal reasons, the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-10/

I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

Who’s going to the Handling People talk?

Wednesday, October 14th at 8PM ET: PT62

Note:

The internal mic on my computer doesn't work. Does anyone know whether or not it'll be okay for me to use the mic on my earbuds to talk with the proctor, or do I need another kind of external mic that doesn't involve having earbuds in? Thanks!

Hey! Anyone from CSUSM taking the LSAT on Saturday?

Proctors: The two main proctors were Eckerd College students, both with good energy. The proctor running the test did a great job of keeping things going, answering questions and handling things.

Facilities: Auditorium of science building. Five rows of tiered seats/tables with enough room for about 25 students seated every other seat. Fortunately, we had fewer than 25, since the rest of the seats were cut-out desks that look really small.

Left-handed accommodation: Tables are perfect for lefties. They did have left-handed cut-out desk if necessary.

Noise levels: Quiet.

Parking: Ample parking in front of building, with a gravel parking lot not too far away.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: We were to arrive by 8:30. I was the second person to check in. No line or anything. I'd say about two-thirds of us arrived by 8:24. By 8:45, we were filling out forms and even with a handful of minor questions and a request to turn on more lights (which they did), the test started around 9 a.m.

Irregularities or mishaps: None

Other comments: All but about 6 test takers were female and I feared this could be a problem in the four-stall ladies room, but there was never any line, so we had ample time there (that was a big concern of mine!). Also time to hang out in the lobby and eat, drink and take a breather before going back in.

Would you take the test here again? Yes. Was very low key and stress free.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: 2/10/18****

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

Is there no explanation for this vide? I'm confused why it shows discussion only... :(

I'm trying to delete the post