I just scored a 162 on PT147. I want to improve my score to be at least 168-170.

I just scored a 162 on PT128.

Is there a way to get access to the summaries that are posted at the end of various lessons? I would love to print them out instead of navigating them on Miro website... I really do not like that format.

I just scored a 159 on PT145. I have taken the LSAT five times now (latest test in November), and I just got approved for a 6th test in June. 152 on the first official attempt without studying, 156 three times in a row after that with no logic games. So, worse case scenario I think I'll hop back on the study train if November's results don't land me in the low/mid 160's. (I took April's released test that was on the LSAC site and scored a 162). Any suggestions on where to go from here would be appreciated. I am around a 158/159/low 160's range. I really believe I am capable of going into the mid 160's. Any advice on where to go from here? Thanks!

Q

Hello,

I am reaching out because my Lawhub account is about to expire. I spoke with LSAC and they said that any prompt I am receiving about LawHub on a third-party vendor site should be addressed with the third-party vendor.

I am receiving a LAWHUB ERROR! message next to my profile icon on 7sage and I want to be sure that when this expires, this will not impact my current profile with 7sage. LSAC has informed me that upon expiration I will have to generate a new LawHub account and I cannot renew before the expiration.

Am I about to lose all of my progress with 7sage that I have tracked? What are next steps? As this expires next week for me.

My drill screen has just shrunk 50% smaller and it's difficult to read. Can we fix this back to full screen? Thanks

I just scored a 151 on PT126. Aiming for a 170 by January - any advice? :)

I just scored a 162 on PT146.

I have the experimental section excluded. I can’t seem to break out of the low 160s. I keep scoring 160/161/162. Scored 160 on the official test 3 times... Any advice? I am taking the January LSAT

Philosopher: You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.

Environmentalist: Ad hominem! Ad hominem! And you call yourself a philosopher.

Philosopher: No. I didn’t commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: But you insulted me and said I was wrong.

Philosopher: No, no, my illogical friend. There’s nuance to this. We commit the ad hominem fallacy when we attack the source of a claim as support for why that claim is wrong.

For example -

You smell like a cesspit. So, we shouldn’t listen to you when you tell us to use eco-friendly soap.

Here, I’m citing to your stench as a reason to reject your recommendation. But the idea that we should use eco-friendly soap should be evaluated on its own merit. What are the pros and cons of eco-friendly soap? That’s what we should consider, not your distasteful body odor. That’s why this argument commits an ad hominem fallacy.

However, consider my original statements.

You’re an idiot. Even if we care about nature, banning fossil fuels would lead to massive deforestation as manufacturers turn to biofuels as a substitute. So we shouldn’t listen to your smooth-brained policy proposal.

Notice that even though I am calling you an idiot, and even though I label your proposal as smooth-brained, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a smooth-brained idiot. I rely instead on the effects of banning fossil fuels to support my conclusion. My comments on your lack of intelligence are simply fun add-ons that don’t play a logical role in my argument. So I’m not committing the ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: Interesting. I think I get it.

Philosopher: Let me give you another example.

Environmentalist: Thanks, but I’m pretty sure I und–

Philosopher: You’re a stinky, mouth-breathing dunce. Ad hominem?

Environmentalist: …Yes?

Philosopher: Ha! Trick question – it wasn’t even an argument. So calling the claim logically flawed wouldn’t even make sense.

Environmentalist: I see. Well, I have to get–

Philosopher: If I had said, for example, that we shouldn’t listen to you because you’re a stinky, mouth-breathing loser and nobody likes you, then that would have been an ad hominem fallacy.

Environmentalist: Thanks, I got it.

Philosopher: You’re welcome, you foul-smelling fool. Not ad hominem!

I just scored a 175 on PT126.

Feeling like I've got a long road ahead to score 175 in January. Any tips? Feeling like parallel reasoning is dragging eme down most. Formal logic is occasionally a trip up, but not often.

I've been averaging a ten-plus point difference on the actual test versus my blind review, and I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I have been doing 2 sections a day (1 LR 1 RC) in preparation for the Jan LSAT. Just this morning when I went to do my sections the whole layout had changed. The questions and stimulus is in a small box in the middle of my screen leaving much open space. Also all the text is super condensed. It threw me off ngl. Is this how the LSAT will frfr look on test day. I plan to take it in a testing center.

If I can get five people to commit to meeting (preferably) in person or online in the metro Atlanta area then I will organize and lead a study group so we can analyze our work and give each other greater perspective for this exam. I am looking to take the April 26 LSAT. I know people are busy so I am just looking to organize a group that will be willing to meet once or maybe twice a week.

When reviewing questions outside of blind review, I can't see my actual take (the answers I eliminated and which ones I kept open). All I see is the unmarked question.

I know correlation does not imply causation, but out of curiosity, does cause imply correlation? and is this something that would ever be encountered on the lsat?

I have a recent 178 LSAT, and an expiring 336 GRE score from a Master’s program I need to send in the next couple days before it’s gone forever. I know the LSAT carries more weight since it’s what affects rankings, but is it worth submitting the GRE since it’s also above the median for my schools?

I guess the question comes down to whether schools will see the GRE as adding another dimension where I demonstrate my strength, or does it dilute my LSAT which is at a higher percentile band? Does anyone have any insight?

I have been studying very lightly the last two months, and as I get closer to my test date, I want to start structuring my study better. The issue is, I don't know how to properly integrate the core curriculum into my studies. I currently aim to take one PT every week or two, and I spend my time in between working on my wrong answer journal and drilling LR and RC sections (For reference purposes my most recent PT was a 170, and my average is 164). Unfortunately, I have barely touched the core curriculum because I feel as if the "foundations" section isn't super helpful to me where I am right now. I don't know how to utilize the curriculum so I don't use it, and I feel like I'm missing out on a lot of helpful content. Should I jump ahead in the planned path? Should I just push through the entire curriculum? I want to make sure I am getting the most value from my time, and the resources available. Does anyone have any advice/insights? Thanks!

I am taking my LSAT in January. However, I just got notified that my LSAC Fee Waiver to Law Hub expires in seven days and that there is NO way to renew it until November 27th, 2026 (a year from now). I have completed the core curriculum on 7sage and am in my first week of drilling. This means that I will be left without access to any prep tests or drill questions starting next week as I lose access to 7Sage materials due to losing my fee-waiver-provided subscription to Law Hub.

I can not afford to purchase a standalone Law Hub subscription (hence why I am on the Fee Waiver). What should I do? I already applied to law schools as the deadline was Nov 1st (the January LSAT is the last accepted LSAT score for this admission cycle in Ontario, Canada) and so this upcoming LSAT score would be the final/only score on my application....

So a month ago I broke 170 on a PT for the first time, 174 on 140. The following week a 173 on PT 150. I was like damn I finally broke the 160s plateau. Lo and behold I got a 168 on PT153, which isn't horrific, given its only around 3ish questions worse compared to my 173 performance, if not for the fact that I got -8 on one of the RC sections, which thankfully was experimental. I'd like to be more realistic about things and just realise that this is all just part of performance variance, but honestly the way reading comprehension drills have been bending me over is just making me question whether those were fluke performances. idk im trying everything ive been told, 4 minutes on the passage, the split approach, highlighting key words, i just find a way to fumble questions. Im redoing old passages from before to avoid running out of passages and still getting stuff wrong. What am i missing? And are drills supposed to be this tough? Also i'm considering getting a tutor because i'm at a bit of a loss, does anyone else have experience with this?

I'm taking the test in January and would love to create a study group if anyone lives in Oahu!! Let me know <3

Hi, I live in North Jersey but also go to NYC a lot so if any girls are interested in a study group in this area let me know. I'm also open to online study sessions to hold each other accountable.

I recently started actually studying and plan on taking the lsat on April.

Hey everyone, If anyone is in NYC and is down for group studies, comment on this post.

Let's get in touch :)

Hello everyone!

I wanted to share my experience with the admissions and writing consulting services at 7Sage. Working with both Daniel Ryu (writer) and Jennifer Kott (Admissions Officer) was a great experience. They were not only knowledgeable and supportive throughout the process, but were also very responsive to all my questions and emails.

While working on the written portions of my application, Daniel was always willing to meet with me through video meetings about once a week and provided great feedback on my work, which allowed me to improve it. Jennifer was equally helpful, answering my questions about the admissions process both during our video session and through email. She helped shed light on some concerns and questions I had about law school and the admissions process, and I greatly appreciated her dedication to help, answer my questions, and reply to emails in a timely manner.

If I had to go through the admissions process all over again, I would absolutely choose 7Sage, their writers, and admissions experts to help me with the application process. Their support was excellent, and I couldn’t recommend them more.

I was consistently PT-ing in the 170+s for several weeks leading up to my October LSAT, but my official score didn’t even break into the 160s :( Has anyone else experienced something similar? I’m starting to question my abilities / intelligence despite all the effort I put in.