Help!!! RC is by far my WORST section. I am consistently missing -12/13 on each practice section I complete. While I am reading, I try to ask myself what each paragraph is about. Once I'm done reading and it's time to go to the questions, I realize that nothing I have read has stuck with me, forcing me to go back to the passage multiple times. I, then, consistently get multiple questions wrong based on the fact that I don't have great RC reading strategies and can't visualize or condense the information I have read into the important things I should know before going to the questions. Does anyone else have any tips on how to focus more on understanding the passage before even getting to the questions and still being in the time limit? I also have decided I'm probably going to end up skipping one passage as a whole on the exam, so I'm thinking I'll have roughly ~12 minutes on each of the other 3 passages. Any help would be soooo greatly appreciated!

I'm really struggling with this

Hey all - I know that for five pieces of paper were allowed for the LSAT-Flex. Is it the same for the four-section test? (including the upcoming October test).

Thanks!

There's a lot of negativity out there, and a lot of anxiety and nervousness going around before the October LSAT. I understand it, as this is my second time taking it this year. But despite the feelings we might have (knots in our stomachs, feelings of defeat, etc), let's all say something we are PROUD of about our LSAT journey so far. If it will help you, I encourage you to write a little statement about the good things, despite or even in spite of all the bad things. I'll go first:

I've been studying for the LSAT since April 2020. A lot of times I have felt defeated and as if all of the hours I was pouring into studying were pointless. I couldn't raise my score for months. I went into the June LSAT upset with where I was, and when I got my score back I was not surprised nor was I disappointed with it. I felt nothing in a way. I knew I needed to raise my score if I want a shot at my dream schools, and I vowed to myself that I would spend as much time needed testing, blind reviewing, forcing myself to understand where I went wrong on all my practice tests. Between the June LSAT and now (October 6) I have finally started seeing my hard work pay off. I have scored 8 points higher than my June score 3 times (!!!!) and for the first time I feel like it wasn't just pure luck -- it's actual hard work and dedication that helped me raise my score. The person I was when I got my lowest score (148 Diagnostic in April 2020) vs. who I am now (scored a 167 multiple times) would have never believed I could raise my score 19 points. But I have, and now I know it's possible to do it on test day.

The point is (and this may sound cliche): it's not enough to look at how far you are from what you want. It's also so crucially important to actually look back and notice how far you have actually come. I really do believe that without giving yourself some kudos for what you _do _ achieve (however minimal), the journey will never be satisfying even if you end up at your goal.

I know that the people on 7sage pour their hearts into the LSAT and getting into law school. Recognize your hard work for what it is. With hard work, confidence, and self-awareness, there's nothing that can stop you from crushing the October LSAT. Believe this, even if you force yourself to believe it. It's a much better mindset to have when going into the test. Trust me.

How is A correct? Can someone provide textual support.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I have taken the LSAT twice: June 2021 and August 2021. Both were 163. I was scoring well above (low 170s) before the most recent one. Obviously, the test day penalty is severe. But how can I overcome this? I recently hit a -0 LR, which I am ecstatic at accomplishing, especially given I have not dipped below -0 on LG in a long time on PTs.

Studies show that maintaining meditation is helpful, but I haven't been doing that consistently. Is there any internal motivation I could possibly engender in myself before test day in an effective way?

(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:

At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."

Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!

Hi everyone- I'm preparing for the October LSAT and was wondering how I should get my room ready for the exam. I know there shouldn't be any electronics but I also have a bookcase filled with pictures and books. Should I clear that? What else should I make sure isn't in my room? Thank you!

So I reveived an email from proctor U saying my registration for Octover LSAT is cancelled. Later I checked LSAC and saw a refund being issued. None of these is done by me. Does anyone know whats going on with October test? Am I the only one getting this?

Everytime I take a PT, I'm always like that one was barely a 155-160, but the vast majority of the time its 165+ lmao.

Can somebody clarify for me the distinction between B and E for Question 20? Aren’t the two choices basically saying the same thing? The only difference being that B specifies that both are flying their respective planes. The rule states that “no plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard,” but doesn’t indicate they need to be flying the plane. Similarly, E states that Cindy is in plane 2, therefore sufficiently satisfying the rule’s requirement. So, what’s the difference here? How do you choose between the two?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-1-game-4/

I scored a 139 on the June FLEX. Some of you might remember a post I made when the June 2021 FLEX scores were released. I still am devastated, but the malaise since then has waned and I am again driven to try to win the LSAT. I just deleted all of my progress in the core cirriculum and I'm starting over from 0. I've since signed up for an introductory logic course at the local community college for the fall semester, while treating this (7 Sage) like another 3hr/5 days a week class. I have no excuses why I can't study in the mornings, so I must and I will.. I honestly don't even care about Law School anymore. I just want to tackle this monstrosity of a test, however long it takes. I'll worry about Law school and admissions and all that other stuff when I get a score that I can personally be happy with and meets my goals. I don't care if it takes 5 years or 10 years. I wrote down some goals to keep me consistent, sober, and healthy while attempting to overcome this rigorous barrier to my successful, legal career. Every comment posted onto my June 30th, 2021 post was encouraging and motivating. People describing their tribulations through this trial of the mind gave me some needed self reflection on why I am doing this and what I hope to accomplish beyond the LSAT. But for now, I am only researching programs and schools to keep me motivated to study and take seriously this feat of intelligence. I look forward to studying along side you all.

So I didn't have a pre-phase and felt that all the answer choices were wrong. How on earth is the correct answer supported by the stimulus? It sounds like some random reasonable statement that makes sense in a common sense sort of way, and isn't anything that needs a stimulus, let alone this one. Like I suppose if your mussels have nuclear waste in them, I wouldn't eat them but this just doesn't sound like a supported statement. It sounds more like everyday advice against eating raw chicken or rotten milk. Did anyone else feel like the same way?

I ended up picking C because its said bags of zebra mussels were "suspended" and that made me think they were floating midwater. I ended up googling photos of zebra mussels clogging pipes and apparently that's not the case. They are literally stuck to the pipes.

I recently posted this question on Reddit, however, I am not sure that the people who responded have enough experience with the test to get exactly what I am asking. So,

Would you guys recommend AGAINST (in questions which require that I analyze an argument)… First, quickly skimming/hunting for the conclusion, then quickly searching for the supporting premise or premises. As opposed to reading the stim from top to bottom?

I know that in order to anticipate the answer correctly all I need are these to things, the rest (background) just serves to slow me down or set me up for trap answers. Also, I am able to shave of a few seconds per question. However, I just started doing this and not sure if it’s a smart idea to make habit.

I am able to do this for most question types including;

strengthen

weaken

required and basic assumptions

SA/PSA

Flaw

Match flaw

What do you guys think? Do you already do this?

Thanks in advance 🙏🏽

Can anyone explain why this is C? thank you for the help!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

So this is a NA question.

Both options D and E make sense to me, but E is supposed to be the correct answer.

E says "anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying"

But what if the consumer believed ads and promos were objective sources of vehicle safety info? If D. was the correct answer it would make sense, because if they were aware that ads weren't objective and they only viewed those, safety probably isn't that important to them.

Maybe safety is their #1 factor but they truly believe ads and promos are objective sources of information. They could just be very unaware and ignorant and believe ads are an objective source.

Let's say health is my number one priority, and I'm drinking these shakes that contained tons of sugar and chemicals because the commercials say they guarantee fat loss. I didn't consult a nutritionist because (for arguments sake I'm just stupid) and I truly wholeheartedly believe the commercials provide an adequate source of information. You really can't say health isn't my number one priority, like you can't say safety isn't their priority. Now if I KNEW the commercials were full of lies and I still drank the shakes anyways, you could say health isn't my number one priority.

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-15/

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Hi guys. I know its not recommended to work during law school, but what are you expected to do for living. Like you could stay with parents, but if the law school is hours or miles away how are we expected to pay for living expenses without working? I know some schools its not even allowed for 1L students to work. I will be going to law school straight out of undergrad, so I just need some insight or opinions.

I am having problems with Author Inference questions in RC and was wondering if there was a way to practice that rather than practicing only law, humanities, art, or science passages. I find that no matter the topic, I struggle with making inferences so if there was any questions you suggest from any PTs in particular please help and let me know how to best practice this!

I am on RC part of 7Sage CC. I get almost all questions correct on questions of difficulty up until four stars. Do questions get significantly harder when the difficulty level is a five stars?

You're working extremely hard to reach your goals, and if you continue to keep going until test date I promise you that you will reach your desired goals. Let's speak it into existence, I'll start:

I'm going to get above 175 on the November 2021 LSAT

*If anyone wants to join an LSAT study discord: https://discord.gg/nNBADg7WnE

I took a couple of LSATs over the weekend with my scores being 157 and 158 respectively. I am set to write the November LSAT and my goal score would be in the 160s. Currently, my strongest section is LG with an average of -1 to -2 on timed games and 0 on longer or untimed. LR and RC tend to fluctuate as under timed conditions, I tend to forego anything type of strategy I have.

Any advice on how to take back control of LR and RC to break into the 160s?

Thank you :)

So yea, I feel silly asking such a question lol.

But what does "no" mean in it's function as a response to another person's argument?

For example, in a disagreement question:

Person 1: A, therefore B. (insert whatever you want for A and B. Make the argument valid or invalid, whatever)

Person 2: No. (rest of stimulus).

So, if I were to read all of Person 1's argument, and then only read the "No." from Person 2's argument, how should I interpret that?

Does "no" ONLY mean that B does not follow from A, in which case B could still be true, you just can't arrive @ B from ONLY A?

Does/could "no" mean that there is a simply a disagreement about context and that B actually does follow from A?

I'm only interested in the function of no within the scope of how the LSAT generally uses this word in disagreement questions.

Thanks!

Is anyone interested and studying together and hammering out tons of lsat question? I feel like having study partners motivates. Interested in doing it over zoom or if you’re located in LA that works as well.

I struggled with this question and I would like some feedback on my thought process:

The conclusion is that widespread, grassroots efforts towards new, stricter controls are unlikely at this time. We know that people generally worry about only the most obvious public health problem. We also know that ozone is very dangerous and that there is a widespread water contamination problem that most people know presents a bigger threat to their community. So here, I said to myself, for the conclusion to be valid, it is not enough to show that most people are aware that water contamination is a bigger threat, it has to tie to the previous idea of people only caring about the most obvious health problem. Accordingly, the water contamination problem must be the more obvious one. In other words, the generalization that people only care about the most obvious health problems explains why most people see water contamination was the bigger threat, and therefore, are unlikely to dedicate efforts to the other, less obvious public health problem - ozone. So I chose C, whereas the correct answer is B.

Where did I go wrong? What's the right way of thinking about this question?

Does anyone want to exchange personal statements? I've signed up for the Oct & Nov LSAT, and I am planning to send out my application once scores come out. Message/comment down your email :)