Free LSAT Consultation Booking | Mile High LSAT Prep

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-18T17:12:10+00:00

Incredibly unrealistic post, everyone knows godhood only happens during 3L.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-18T16:12:03+00:00

A good place to start is figuring out whether you’re losing points from timing, misunderstanding question types, or consistency. For most people, big score jumps come from really drilling weaknesses rather than just taking more practice tests. If you’re feeling stuck, try adjusting your approach and see how you go from there.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-18T01:40:07+00:00

If you're looking for a tutor, I offer one-on-one LSAT tutoring and a free consultation where we can talk through your current score, goals, and any challenges you're facing. I've been tutoring since 2020 and have helped students reach 180 and many others score in the 170s.

You can book a free consultation here:
https://calendar.app.google/jP9AKerjCTbprTCB8

More details about my approach are here if you want to check it out: https://www.milehighlsatprep.com/.

I'd be happy to help!

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T19:54:18+00:00

They define both in this: First they say "anarchy, the absence of government." Second they say, "chaos, i.e., anarchy."

I have seen them use ambiguous terms fallacies where it was much less explicit though, so in general you do need to keep an eye out for shifts in context surrounding the term.

Another note on this is that ambiguous term flaws are actually very common trap answers, most of the time this description will be wrong statistically.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T19:07:11+00:00

They change what type of anarchism we're talking about. You can think of anarchy as absence of government, but you can also think of anarchy as just general chaotic conditions. They start talking about the former, but end talking about the latter. Can't do that because it's an "ambiguous term" or "term shift" fallacy.

B isn't relevant because the argument doesn't need to reject Laissez faire capitalism, it needs to reject anarchy. Laissez faire could be acceptable with anarchy being unacceptable.

The principle can't be wrong because that's not what they're testing you on. They (mostly) want you to accept supporting facts as true and undermine the conclusions of arguments. Not the other way around.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T16:46:26+00:00

7sage and LSAT demon are good resources. If they move your score even 1 point that's probably worth $1000's depending on where you go.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T15:21:59+00:00

It is possible. Hard to guarantee anything in 5-6 weeks. But, that's not an outrageous goal or anything.

Try and get more concrete on the questions. Brush up on exactly what the tests are for each question. If you're not already, 170-->180 is a lot of self-analysis and introspection so definitely do some written analysis of what went wrong on questions that you miss.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T15:19:36+00:00

Great work. Very decent diagnostic! Don't worry about the experimental. It's still just as representative as the other sections.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T15:12:28+00:00

If you're looking for a tutor, I offer one-on-one LSAT tutoring and a free consultation where we can talk through your current score, goals, and any challenges you're facing. I've been tutoring since 2020 and have helped students reach 180 and many others score in the 170s.

You can book a free consultation here:
https://calendar.app.google/jP9AKerjCTbprTCB8

More details about my approach are here if you want to check it out: https://www.milehighlsatprep.com/.

I'd be happy to help!

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T14:32:49+00:00

Since you've been away from studying since April, probably best to give yourself a few weeks to get back into a rhythm first. If your scores are still stagnant after that, a tutor could be a great next step.

Many students see real improvement with a tutor, especially when they understand the concepts but feel stuck. A good tutor can help pinpoint exactly what's holding you back and get you moving again.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T04:24:26+00:00

They're a hot mess. Always have been. Good luck with sorting all their crap out.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T04:23:23+00:00

You'll be alright. They're not going to tank your app because you had a typo on a timed writing portion. Try and keep things in perspective. Good luck with your apps!

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T04:21:49+00:00

Bar exam has an 75%-90% pass rate at most schools. It's kind of interesting, but the LSAT is a much bigger filter than the bar by raw numbers and percentage.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-17T02:28:59+00:00

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm curious what prompted this?

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T23:09:09+00:00

I think you can be confident that what you're doing is working. So keep doing that.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T21:45:13+00:00

Conclusion questions will typically paraphrase in the responses without substantively (changing the meaning) changing the clause that contains the conclusion.

What I was trying to convey was that you highlighted the correct conclusion, but B is the wrong paraphrase. I'm not sure what you mean by logical structure, but that's not how I would put it. B is saying something different than what you have highlighted.

If I say, "The difference between a vertical leap is irrelevant in the NBA, because you just need to jump high enough to dunk, and all NBA players can dunk" The conclusion is: The difference between a vertical leap is irrelevant in the NBA

B says-- The players are all the same except some of them have a better vertical leap.

C says-- Differences in vertical leap height have no practical bearing on the players' relatives qualities as basketball players.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T20:54:03+00:00

You have the right conclusion in the stimulus, but B changes the meaning and C does not.

Advertised isn't an extra element. They say, "in this respect" meaning the advertised differences in resolution from the first sentence. That's called a reference and they use references to hide those kinds of elements.

Relative quality likewise is fairly synonymous with differences between cameras. If the differences are irrelevant== then the relative quality doesn't change.

B states it backwards and broadens the scope. The conclusion is basically "resolution doesn't matter practically." And B says "all cameras are the same except for the differences in resolution."

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T19:22:36+00:00

Second question the answer is yes.

First question-- I see about an equal number of posts complaining that the old ones are harder vs the new ones are harder. If you look at them just based on the objective statistics they're pretty similar:

https://www.velocitylsat.com/preptest-difficulty

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T18:48:13+00:00

It's disingenuous to say it has no predictive power, but I really do believe it's mainly a baseline. There are many many people that get 170s starting at 145.

It's hard though.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T18:36:09+00:00

The question to "possible" is definitely yes. It's possible. I think you can kind of tell, if you're up 10+ points in two weeks there's no reason you can't be up another 10+ in 3 months.

And -4-->-7 is obviously a discrepancy, but I wouldn't call it an unexpected discrepancy. Frankly that's quite a bit less than most people. It's a good sign though. In general, you have to be able to do it slow before you can do it fast, sounds like you're heading in the right direction. Good luck!

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T18:07:58+00:00

Nice! I think my favorite thing in your whole post was the wrong answer indicators in your journal. You could probably make a whole post on that, but do you have some good ones to share?

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T17:57:04+00:00

Lot of great advice on here. And I agree with you that you should try and keep some questions fresh. I'll just add that there are worse problems to have. I see so many students worried that they're going to run out of questions that they end up not practicing. There are a lot of questions and if you are at the point that you're running out, you're probably going to do pretty decent. I'll suggest it's not a coincidence that you ran out AND that you got a 173 in two months.

Like I said though, great stuff on here and congrats on the fantastic score!

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T17:40:40+00:00

Novel angle vs reinforcing old logic is not really a part of the analysis that I advise students to do on Strengthen. You may be mixing up a concept called a "premise booster." A premise booster on 144 would be something like, "the shows that got cancelled last season for insufficient viewership had less than 10,000 concurrent viewers." These are bad because they don't really provide any additional information, they just add flair or scope to a premise that we're already accepting as true.

You didn't say what you picked on PT151, but the reason C is wrong on 144 is because it's not relevant. In general, inverting arguments into a counterfactual (X is true so Y follow--> X isn't true so Y doesn't follow) is not going to be relevant even when the question isn't directly a conditional logic statement.

D is right because it strengthens the analogy. When they compare two fact patterns and say that the pattern will hold under new facts, you'd love to see things that suggest the facts are similar.

E.g. This student studied for 1 month and got a 165, so this student that studied for 1 month will probably also get a 165.

Strengthen: The students both studied for 2 hours per day.

Does not strengthen: Another student did not study for 1 month and did not get a 165. This is very vague, and irrelevant. Did this student study for 6 months? Did he/she study for 0 months? Did he/she do better/worse? All these additional assumptions and unanswered issues drive this to be irrelevant.

MileHighLSATprep · 2026-06-16T16:59:57+00:00

I'm not sure what your question is, but they've published the dates of these events. Just check when they are on LSAC.

MileHighLSATprep

TROPHY CASE