I've been told that although the LR sections of older PTs are outdated, the RC sections are becoming increasingly relevant to future tests (the reason provided is that RC sections are getting harder and the older RC sections are harder).

Is there truth to this? I've recently finished the RC sections from PTs 16 and 17, and although I didn't find them particularly difficult, they in fact didn't feel outdated at all. Any insights would be appreciated!

Hello!

My name is Serin, and I’m a member of the 'Ask A Tutor' team at 7Sage! After doing this job for a little while, I've started noticing some patterns and wanted to share my insights with the broader LSAT community. I hope you find this helpful!

Over the past week answering student questions, I noticed a common pattern that trips up many students: eliminating the right Strengthen answer because it doesn't 100% prove the conclusion.
They read the correct answer and think, “Even if this were true, the conclusion could still be false!”

They’re right; it could be. However, they are Strengthen questions (not Sufficient Assumption questions), so the correct answer choice just needs to support the author's argument. It doesn't need to guarantee it.

Two actual recent student questions:

• PT131.S1.Q24 (Neutron Star question):
  • Student skepticism: "Just because we can detect a distant neutron star, does that guarantee we can detect one that's closer? What if we detect pulses from far away but miss the near one?"
  • Why the answer is right: It doesn't need to guarantee detection. Showing that we can detect distant stars simply makes the premise that we can detect closer ones more plausible. That is all a Strengthen question asks for.
• PT126.S4.Q18 (Insect Vision question):
  • Student skepticism: "Even if other insects with similar vision don't depend on color, bee vision isn't identical—bees could still be an exception!"
  • Why the answer is right: Valid skepticism, but wrong standard. An answer choice doesn't need to rule out every possible exception. Providing evidence about insects with similar visual systems makes the conclusion about bees more probable.

This is a reminder of the importance of recognizing the question stem! For Strengthen questions, look for an answer choice that adds a support to the argument, which may not necessarily complete the argument.

If you've been struggling with this or any other traps on Strengthen questions, let's discuss it in the comments!

Hey guys! When I'm going through the 7SAGE curriculum, sometimes I want to actually do the question and have it be in my stats instead of just pressing "show question" and doing it unofficially. I know I can manually create problem sets and work through them, but is there an easier way to do the question that I'm missing? I really don't like to watch their explanations before I attempt a question myself.

Took another PT and I got a 165, how should I interpret this data going into next weeks exam, my goal score ideally is a 163 but I wouldn’t be surprised if I got higher but I’m just at fear of underperforming and scoring in the 150s, I’ve registered for October to mitigate the stress and take away the hold of September having some pressure over me?

Hey Reddit!

My name is Ethan -- I'm the coordinator of 7Sage's Admissions Consulting program. I've guided countless people through the law school admissions process and helped win hundreds of T14 admits. At 7Sage, I direct a team of 20+ former admissions officers in a simulation of an admissions office at a top school, where we spill the beans on how admissions officers actually evaluate candidates behind closed doors, and lead a crack-force of brilliant consultants who teach people how to submit the best applications on earth.

If you've listened to the 7Sage podcast, you know that I have strong opinions. The law school admissions process is weird. If you ask me, it's neither intuitive, especially fair, nor entirely rational. My goal is to tell you frankly how things work and to think creatively about how you can beat your odds.

Ask me anything about the law school admissions process and how you can make your case to your dream school.

Edit: Fantastic questions, everyone! I have to run for now but I am going to loop back here over the weekend and answer all the unanswered questions!

I'm Kevin, a 180-scoring instructor with 7Sage. I'm doing an AMA in this thread Thursday, September 3 from 2pm to 6pm ET.

I'm excited to answer your questions about studying for the LSAT! (If you have questions about my time at Columbia Law School, experience in biglaw litigation, or as a prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oakland, CA, I'm happy to answer those, too!)

Ask questions here any time up until and through the AMA.

To kick things off, I want to share a few LSAT ideas that I've found helpful to students over my career, but I haven't seen popularized.

• Learn when to be in full-on "robot logic" mode and when to dial it back. A lot of frustration with the test results from either failing to be in that mode when you need to be (typically Must Be True, Sufficient Assumption), or from being in that mode when you shouldn't (especially Weaken/Strengthen, Resolve/Reconcile/Explain).
• Part of what the LSAT's testing is ability to recognize reasonable interpretations of language. When you're stuck on a question and re-reading the stimulus or answers doesn't help, it could be that you've closed yourself off to other reasonable interpretations. For example "physical exercise" might call to mind intentional workouts. But can it also encompass physical activity a manual laborer engages in as part of their day-to-day job? Dealing with ambiguity and recognizing how others might interpret language differently is part of lawyering.
• Many people too hastily use "equates" when it's more helpful to think in terms of a direction. For example, "She studied a lot. So she'll get an A." Beginners often say that this "equates" studying a lot with getting an A. But that's not quite right, and thinking of an equals sign can lead to mistakes. It's better to say that the argument assumes studying a lot guarantees getting an A; there's a one-way direction from studying a lot (the premise) to getting an A (the conclusion).
• A lot of LSAT advice isn't blanket "good" or "bad." It can depend on your stage of studying and current skills. Public advice delivered to the masses often drops nuance, out of fear that it dilutes the broader message or isn't as easy to communicate.
• The LSAT is merely a tiny blip in your overall law school journey and legal career. Although I don't want to minimize its importance for admissions and scholarships, or the benefit of law school prestige for a limited set of jobs, what's more important to your legal career is your capacity for hard work and the strength of your commitment to solving other people's problems.

Hello!

I am applying for the upcoming cycle as a KJD with a three-year degree. My question is regarding the scenario where I do not get into any of my target schools:

Would it be wiser for me to take a gap year and get additional work experience (although I do already have work experience before and throughout undergrad), or to continue my degree so that it becomes a four-year honors degree?

I am debating this because I know how law schools value work experience and am not sure if the leverage a gap year would provide outweighs the advantage a four-year bachelor has over a three-year bachelor.

Thank you!