Hello Everyone, I recently signed up to take the LSAT in November this year. I am confused though because it doesn't tell me a specific day to take the test or a time. I just generalizes it and I am very confused, trying to figure it out. Also I noticed on the LSAC website they offer this thing called CAS, is this needed? I was confused on what that was as well because financing everything by myself is VERY expensive for the time being.

TLDR: When do they release the test days? Do I have to check once a week or something to sign up again? And is the CAS required for Law School Applications.

I was just curious to see if anyone had taken 66 today (to be BR'd as a group on Wednesday night). I like to review the LR sections one question at a time before the group session just in case I miss something with the group--I've found it to be very helpful in the past. Message me if interested!

I am looking for study partners in Winnipeg. All types of scorers welcome.

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

Did anyone take the March 2018 LSAT? It was only offered in Puerto Rico, and I hadn't seen a discussion on it. LSAC is advertising a less than two week turn around time for scores.

Hello I have a question regarding the method of identifying an assumption. This is a strengthening question.

Context: Therapeutic intervention before the occurrence of mental disorders can mitigate factors known as major contributor to them.

Premise: A much more comprehensive research program is necessary to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures.

Conclusion: In order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

In order to find an assumption, I tried to see the gap between the premise and conclusion and found one gap that increase in funding for the research could lead to a much more comprehensive research program. With this in mind, I went to AC. But I could not find an answer that matches the assumption I drew. In the second shot of POE, through (C) I found that the author is assuming that by saying that the intervention research is cost effective the author is making an assumption that the research program is inexpensive compared to long-term treatment.

My question is, how come do I find the assumption that the right answer actually requires if that assumption cannot be drawn from the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Here, the claim that the research program is cost-effective seems to have nothing to do with the premise.

This question is part of CC.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-04/

Thank you.

how do you guys do MBT and MSS conditional logic questions quickly / in a timely manner? When I am doing a timed run sometimes the language of the stim feels like gibberish to me so that doesn't help because I'm re-reading it several times. Then I also feel like diagramming the whole thing takes too much time. From there I'm already tempted to skip it. However, in BR, the answer feels way more obvious once I understand the logic at play -- it just takes too long to grasp the logic at play. If anyone feels the same as me, how did you 1. read the stimulis without freaking out / decipher it without needing to read it a million times 2. do you diagram it ? or do the inferences stand out in your head quite quickly? 3. Was it a matter of just drilling these questions more and then you got the hang of it ?

Hello all!

I’m starting a small LSAT sprint group for those of us scoring 160+ and aiming toward 175–180.

The idea is to have a consistent weekly rhythm: we’ll set a few specific goals, check in mid-week, and reflect at the end. There’s also a short Monday Zoom call to wrap one sprint and start the next.

A little about me: I tutor part-time and slowly working my way up through practice tests. I’m currently scoring in the high 170s on PTs, and my last official score is 173. I’m aiming for 180 and wanted to build a consistent study community of like-minded learners to keep momentum, and hopefully to meet others who are pushing for the same thing!

This is for people who are committed and willing to show up. If that’s you, DM me for the invite. Comments won’t get a response — just want to make sure folks are actually reading before joining :)

Good luck to everyone studying!

Scoring in the high 170s looking to tutor specifically in RC for free to be a little more consistent in my PT scores. Started in the 130s.

I just took the June LSAT but I haven't done the essay yet, so I wrote a practice one under timed conditions. I'm a strong writer & editor but I have been out of college for a year and a little rusty on writing these argumentative style essays. I'm going to take the essay in the next couple days, but does anyone want to compare practice essays and give each other a little feedback? I took argumentative essay #2 on LawHub, but I'm open to other topics ofc

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

This server is focused on study events that help build consistency, discipline, and a productive mindset not just for LSAT but for anyone looking to improve their study habits and stay motivated.

✨ Regular study challenges like the 21-Day Hustlers Challenge, Weekly Goals, and the 10-Hour Champions Week

📚 A distraction-free environment with active study sessions and accountability systems

👥 A supportive community of serious students from different backgrounds

🎁 Rewards, ranks, and recognition for top performers to keep you going!

🔗 https://discord.gg/jCq9gF9B2S

Calling other non-trads. My youngest child is heading to college, and I am considering law school. I hold a BA in Human Physiology and an MBA and I am currently a COO of a tech and media co.

Let me know if you are interested in creating a non-trad study group.

If you haven't joined, please do! The link should work for sharing purposes as well. https://discord.gg/AWekDrtwHc

I just want to give a world wide shout out to Nicole Agrononik the 7 Sage tutor. Her teaching style of covering theory before practice has been a god sent to me and Im sure for everyone else. I am at a 92% for PSAr questions and I give the credit where its due. She explains things in a way that's easily understood. IDK who taught Nicole but I'm thankful for them too. I want to thank her mama for having her. I just watched her flaw factory class and I am telling you I thought I knew what I false dichotomy was and Hello. I didn't. So, I just want to give Nicole a hellafied praise for STL.

I wanted to take a moment to really shout out tutor and course instructor James Marmaduke for going above and beyond. Through a twist of fate, I ended up registered for his Feb 2025 advanced LSAT course and he genuinely cares about each and every one of his students. From my personal experience, especially if you are very self-accountable, I can truly say that a class with James would be worth investing in. As I sat through our first weekly check-in, I was surprised at how much he actually cared about my overall LSAT journey and how obvious that this was more than just a job for him. Also sending much thanks and appreciation to Thomas Langmuir for his patience and support in making this happen in the first place!

Hi there! I apologize if this question is asked often or will be answered for me in the course, but at what point should I start supplementing with practice tests and drilling? I've heard about starting once you've finished the grammar section, Foundations, or the entire course. Any tips/suggestions? Thank you!

I'm completely new to the LSAT and wanted to approach it alongside others who are also just starting out. I don’t plan to take the LSAT in June, but I’m aiming for the next available test date after that since I’m applying for Fall 2027. LMK if anyone is down to create some type of group chat

I've been studying for 2 years on the LSAT averaging 136 and have used the loophole book, 7 sage, tutoring, and lsat hub with practice test each week. Can I just apply to law school with my score because it's not increasing honestly. My GPA is 3.7, and I'm at a Ivy grad school hoping to start law school fall 2027.

Where do I find my confirmation number? If you are taking the August 2025 exam, does anyone already have there's already?

I happened to take a prep test early on in my practice here on 7sage, I then thought I took a different one on Lawhub a few months later but I actually repeated the same one, is it possible for my to upload that score manually still? Like can I have a prep test have two pseperate score from two separate testing sessions with out deleting one? Just curious?

Hey wassup Yall hope everyone's studying is going well! I wanted to post and see if there are people who would like to meet and start a study group? I plan on testing in April. Im up to meet in person or Zoom!

Hi,

I am a full time 9-5 employee looking for a study buddy. I am available most evenings and the weekends. I am aiming for a 165+, my last PT was a 161. I am looking to focus on logical reasoning as this is my weakest section.

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/