For each drill question, it shows a "curve" for the likelyhood of someone with that score getting the question right. But im feeling a bit confused on what that exactly means. So if the black bar is at "135" for example, it means that someone with a 135 was likely to get that question right?

come watch me pls

Hi all!

As the title suggests, I'm rather new to LSAT studying and just purchased 7Sage (grinded a little through PS bibles until I felt I wasn't understanding them very well). I've taken a diagnostic in Dec 2021, studied on and off until my real LSAT in April. I got a sadly lower score than I anticipated, but it encouraged me to invest in 7Sage and study differently.

With that being said, I just took another timed PT and scored a better one with still some big areas for improvement. I've already done the blind review.

What's the next step from here? Do I look for 7Sage content that tackles the topics I got wrong or go through question-by-question to work through each problem again? What has been most beneficial to you all when starting out? I want to be as effective and efficient with my time as possible as my tentative goal is to take the LSAT again in October.

I'll post my scores if it'll provide context :) (As an FYI, I haven't completely "learned" LG or RC yet and have spent the majority of my time thus far in LR.)

Thanks and good hunting to all!

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

Hi everyone,

I'm planning to take the LSAT exam in August and I made a Discord group so that we can talk about it and give each other advice.

Here's the link: https://discord.com/invite/f3u2RXS2

Hey all!

I am currently looking for study buddies that are in a similar life stage as I am. I was interested to see if any parents or older individuals out there are interested in studying together or working through certain questions together. I know my study schedule is 4-7:30 am, mid day (random times while my son is napping), after 8:30 PM (if I have energy) and weekends.

Just looking for someone that understands the parental struggles but still would want to be able to study/discuss the test with someone.

Hi Everyone! What LSAT prep test should I take after the diagnostic or does it matter? Thank you!!

Hi! I really want to apply to be in Boyd law school in Fall 2025. I don't know anyone with the same goals and have always felt like a study partner is helpful. I would love to study with someone who gets this! :) Just tired of feeling like im doing this alone lol

Hi all,

I almost always take notes when going through the lessons in the core curriculum. When I finish it and it is time to focus on drills and Preptests, is there a way I can use those notes, especially from questions I got wrong?

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

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!

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

Hello everyone. You can never be a part of too many study groups, right? I want to make another one for people taking the LSAT between these time frames. If you are taking it sooner/later feel free to join as well, honestly. Comment if interested I will post a link later! Any scores, knowledge levels, and questions are welcome. If you just need to vent about studying for the LSAT I am here for that as well! Let me know! Comment or inbox.

LINK IS HERE! https://groupme.com/join_group/87045624/OHRc3uwy

Episode #81 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/81-what-to-expect-as-a-1l

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

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.

Hey y'all!

This week's LSAT Tips is out! This week, I wrote about discipline as it relates to the LSAT. You can read it here: https://7sage.substack.com/p/lsat-tips-developing-discipline?s=w

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

Also, if you're interested in tutoring but would like to talk to someone before committing to a plan, schedule a free consultation with one of our tutors here: https://calendly.com/7sage-consult/7sage-tutoring-free-consult

I hope this week's newsletter is helpful!

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!