I have already stated that I have been disappointed in the education provided and don't believe that I can get the information and confidence in the LSAT exam. I am finding a great deal of difference and lack of true understandable and applicable guidance from this course when compared to other courses.

I am not sure that I can receive the necessary score that I need for acceptance, considering that I have already been accepted as long as I receive a score of between 153-155.

As a former Senior Adjunct Professor I am interested in that most LSAT consider those receiving scores of 170+ the values for their instructors to be the "accredited" instructors. But this never is the ultimate consideration. Can this instructor deliver a course that is "well developed" and by this person or persons who can really teach?

If nothing else, guidance on approach to questions, applications of principles as well as "office hours videos, etc.

In terms of affordability, this website has a lot for what you're paying for, which I appreciate. However, if you are not scoring initially in the higher score range for the LSAT, this website is not for you. Most people who use the Study Buddy and Discussion Form are all high scorers who don't want to help lower test takers (for example a common post, "looking for study buddy, must have a score of 166+, send screenshot of chart"). As someone who struggled with the LSAT, this website was very discouraging. I think if this is you're only study material and you follow it detail for detail it can be helpful, but in many lessons I felt frustrated by the no explanation explanations ( for example; "This is wrong because it is"). I feel very mixed overall and mislead by the hype of this website.

I can't recommend 7sage. While J.Y. provides fantastic Logic Game explanations, he is awful at explaining Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension (not that there is much to teach for the latter section).

I found that my initial Logical Reasoning scores were much higher than they were when I adopted his "Lawgic" methodology; I will be leaning solely on my intuition this Saturday.

If it weren't for the fact that his Logic Games are already free, I would rate 7Sage 4/5 stars. Since that content is free, all you are paying for is useless Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension explanations (by the way, two of his Logical Reasoning explanations are incorrect).

I did learn two valuable things from the course:

1. Always attack the link between the premise and conclusion.

2. Blind-review: whenever you are unsure about your answer, go back and try to solve it after your test, before grading it.

I'll end this review by saying that on the very first LSAT I took with simulated conditions, before ever studying at all, I scored a 161. Today I took LSAT 78 (the most recent one at the time of writing this) and I scored a 162. Sure, I got some great scores in between, but I think that they were pretty much independent of any of the instruction I got from 7Sage (barring the possibility that I may not have heard about the method of Blind Review without J.Y.).

I recently completed a Kaplan classroom course, but felt that I wasn't reaching my full potential and wanted to gain a second perspective before taking the LSAT in December. So far, I have found the 7sage online course to be much more mechanical than what I learned through Kaplan. Especially in regards to formal logic, this course really breaks down arguments to their core. I'm sure this is very helpful for some people who don't have a grasp of basic logic, but I feel that under time constraints, having a strong logical intuition is what it takes to do well on the LSAT. There is no way you can take the time to break down every argument systematically and expect to be able to finish every question and I feel all the time spent memorizing formal logic could be better spent. Also, I wish the visual layout was more clear. I know that simply drawing squiggly lines is a cost effective way of presenting information, but it can often appear scattered and confusing. Finally, many of the examples used are strange and unusual and make things more complicated than they need to be. I have yet to delve into the course strategies for reading comp and logic games, so I'm hoping at least those will be useful.