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!

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!

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?

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!

I don't know what study plan to rely on, and I don't want to waste too many time even though I am still starting. I keep going to study the harder things I need to work on and blind review with no results. I am definitely doing something wrong, but I don't know how or what to fix. Please help.

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

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. :)))

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! :)

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 all! which PTs are the most recent that i should try before the june lsat? i am assuming those will be the most similar, but is that an unreasonable assumption?

Hey all,

Wondering how to prevent score fluctuations. I was doing LR sections and consistently scoring around -2 with highest most recently being a -0. Then yesterday i decided to take a full PT without the experimental (PT 158) and scored a 164. My RC score was the highest it had ever been but my LRs were -6 and -4

I am taking the June test. Any advice on how to prevent these crazy swings and burnout. Last time I took an official LSAT I had the same problem where I was scoring pretty high and then one PT was super low and from then on I was stuck at the super low end score. Probably burnt myself out because I was so stressed about the low score.

Hello! My name is Greg, and I specialize in personalized LSAT tutoring tailored to each student’s unique needs and learning style. Since 2020, I’ve helped multiple students achieve perfect 180 scores and guided dozens more into the 170s through an adaptable, supportive, and results-driven approach. Admitted to the bar in 2025, I also provide guidance beyond the LSAT, including law school admissions strategy, school selection, and application navigation.

Outside of tutoring and law, I enjoy hiking, biking, skiing, and playing chess. I believe balance is an important part of success, and I encourage students to build sustainable study habits alongside their academic goals.

So I took my first timed section this weekend. I got a 150 on a full PT and feeling not great about it.

I have been studying seriously for 6 months straight. Any advice would help. I am considering getting a tutor. Any advice would be helpful, I can message my analytics.

My goal is a 165.

My best untimed sections at 19/25 for LR 21/27 for Reading. I will say from the beginning I have seen improvements but people on the internet make me feel like I am slower to learn the LSAT!

It could be a timing issue, the 4 star and 5 star questions are simply hard.

Lmk

Hi, I'm new here and wondering if there are study notes that go along with the videos that can be printed? thanks!

I have been seeing mixed messages on this topic and wanted some clarity on this sub. I took the LSAT for the first time in April and got a 160, my goal is 170+. I registered for the June test but have had only a few days to keep practicing questions and reviewing. I have work travel coming up, I've been super sick, hosted family in town, etc. and feel like I am not confident I will improve my score much by the June test. Do I still take it since I already paid for it? What is the real downside of score another 160 or potentially slightly lower? I would feel more confident pushing to August but figured I already paid the several hundred bucks, and could use it as extra practice even if I don't do as well as I'd hoped.

The lessons in the study plan should be adaptive based on frequently missed topics for each user based on that user's diagnostic, if the user chose to take a diagnostic. If this is already implemented maybe I missed it? It would also be nice to be able to pick additional lessons from the "lessons" tab that we want to add to the study plan on our own (for example, I want to add the admissions and LSAT writing modules in to my study plan)

Hi! I work like 50 hour weeks and study for the LSAT on the side. My goal is 165+ and I am currently at a 158. I am taking virtual courses Mondays and Thursdays, but would love to have a group to study with outside of that! I am planning to take the September LSAT and reapply for law schools this cycle.

I tried self-study but had trouble holding myself accountable and working through answers that did not make sense to me. I think working together would help with that!

Any other full time workers want to hold each other accountable and master this hard ahhh test?? LOL - I am based in Houston, TX if anyone is in that area ... I see people are all over the world in here!