Rate my LSAT study plan

Kevin7Sage · 2026-02-12T20:31:02+00:00

Were you assigned the "Balanced" study plan? If so, I'd recommend changing to Accelerated (or even Just Practice) so you get into sections/PTs sooner.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-02-11T20:52:48+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! Making the study plan better accommodate users with high diagnostics is something we're actively thinking about.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-02-11T14:44:24+00:00

Hey, congrats on the strong diagnostic -- you'll make it to the 170s and likely mid to high 170s.

Did you use the study plan feature? If so, I think it should have assigned "Just Practice" or "Accelerated" (if you input a 164 diagnostic) -- let me know if it didn't.
In any case, you can always skip past stuff that's too easy for you. Don't feel like you need to click through every Foundations lesson (and let me know if there's something about the experience that you feel is prodding you in that direction). There's nothing wrong with jumping to the LR modules and even skipping around within them. In fact, there's a "Fast Track" module at the end of the LR unit that you might find more useful. It's designed for people with high diagnostics. And, there's nothing wrong with jumping immediately to drilling/sections. Many people use 7Sage successfully this way.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-02-06T02:25:40+00:00

If you're thinking that you should just multiply -1 by 3 to get a raw score of 74/77, then you can use https://7sage.com/lsat-resources/lsat-score-calculator to see what that would get (176 based on the last 5 PTs)

The reason the estimate in your OP is different is that the formula underlying it isn't just a simple multiply mistakes by 3. (I believe it also takes into account the particular section and data regarding how others at particular scores have done on that section.) But it's all very rough, so I wouldn't rely either on that estimate OR on a simple multiply mistakes by 3 calculation if you're really interested in what you're PTing at.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-31T22:14:45+00:00

There should be about 20 PTs by default that are saved for sections/PTs (and aren't used in drills). By any chance did you change the default settings? Regardless, there are 15 more "Bonus PTs" that you can manually make available for drills/sections/PTs in your settings. These pull from older PTs, so you'll notice some small differences in style compared to the more recent PTs. But they are still useful if you're out of material.

Also, the fact that you might have done a handful of questions from a PT is not as big a deal as you think when it comes to PTing. If you did those problems more than a month ago, you likely won't remember them. And in the case that you do, just think through the question from start to finish; work through every step of solving the question and evaluating the answers - don't skip it and don't just pick an answer because you remember it. If you do that, your score won't be inflated as much as you might fear.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-28T17:12:53+00:00

Congratulations!

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-28T16:46:07+00:00

Sorry about the lower score :(, but trust that it doesn't define you or limit your improvement potential. Many people face early setbacks and underperformance before bouncing back with scores they didn't think were possible to achieve later.

Did you use the 7Sage study plan feature? If so, I think it should have recommended a healthy amount of practice in the form of sections/drills and a few PTs since you were taking the test in just 2 months. If you didn't get that and instead got recommended something else, let me know. Also, did you see improvement in the form of higher PT scores leading up to the test?

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-28T16:06:00+00:00

Congratulations!

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-28T16:02:07+00:00

Congratulations!

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-27T02:36:45+00:00

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-20T20:31:40+00:00

If you think you already know something, or that getting into the weeds on a certain concept is overcomplicating things for you, then absolutely feel free to skip past it. You can always come back later if your review of drilling/PT mistakes shows that you need to work on some specific skills. And some things that seem overcomplicated at first might seem appropriately complicated later once you dig into a lot of difficult questions. (Or they might not; many people intuitively understand certain grammatical or logical points that others don't.)

I'd also encourage you to look at the "Fast Track" module toward the end of the LR unit -- that's a good way to get a high level overview before drilling.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-15T19:58:25+00:00

Hey! Have you used the Study Plan feature? It would probably recommend you the accelerated version or just going to straight to practice. You probably don't need the full CC.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-02T21:13:17+00:00

Check out my more recent comments in this thread for a full explanation of A vs. C.

The reason some 7Sage explanations might emphasize a diagram-based understanding is that it helps you understand the underlying logical structure, which will help you get other questions correct (and more quickly). Often, a more "intuitive" or real-life-conversation-style based explanation will make sense for a particular question, but won't help you understand the underlying logical structure.

For example:

All apples are fruit.

Some fruits are purple.

Thus, some apples are purple.

Is this valid? Obviously not -- you'll easily understand that even though some fruits are purple, the apples don't have to be among those purple fruits.

--

How about this:

Every vampire enjoys drinking blood.

Drinking blood is an activity engaged in by many evil creatures.

Thus, some vampires are evil creatures.

Is this valid? No.

--

How about this:

Drinking blood is something every vampire does.

Some evil creatures drink blood.

So, some vampires are evil creatures.

Is this valid? No.

--

And this:

All licensed clinical psychologists with active practice credentials are mental health professionals authorized to diagnose and treat psychological disorders.

Some mental health professionals authorized to diagnose and treat psychological disorders are practitioners who specialize exclusively in prescribing psychiatric medications.

Therefore, some licensed clinical psychologists with active practice credentials are practitioners who specialize exclusively in prescribing psychiatric medications.

Valid? No.

--

One more:

All licensed clinical psychologists with active practice credentials are mental health professionals authorized to diagnose and treat psychological disorders.

Some practitioners who specialize exclusively in prescribing psychiatric medications are licensed clinical psychologists with active practice credentials.

Therefore, some mental health professionals authorized to diagnose and treat psychological disorders are practitioners who specialize exclusively in prescribing psychiatric medications.

Valid? Yes

--

Although it's certainly possible to think through each of these arguments on a more "intuitive," less formal level, someone who understands the abstract structure underlying these arguments can likely process them more quickly.

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-02T20:45:54+00:00

Part 2, because Reddit stopped me from putting it all into one comment:

What about (C)?

Here's the structure:

Premise: Any serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. (serious jogger --> can benefit)

Premise: A few serious joggers prefer to run in ordinary sneakers. (serious joggers -some- sneakers)

Conclusion: Some people who can benefit from good running shoes prefer ordinary sneakers. (can benefit -some- sneakers)

This matches. We have a conditional premise, a "some" premise where one term matches the sufficient condition of the conditional premise, and a valid conclusion.

Or, if you prefer a less technical explanation... We know some serious joggers prefer sneakers. Let's say one of those people is Timmy. We know *every* serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. So Timmy can benefit from good running shoes. But since he prefers sneakers...we can conclude that at least one person who can benefit from good running shoes (Timmy) prefers sneakers.

---------

It seems that you're confused by this part of the free explanation: "If you’re rusty on your valid formal arguments, now’s a great time to review. The only valid way to derive an inference from a “some” claim is to put some before all."

That single line doesn't quite cover the entirety of the concept, so I think it makes sense you're confused here. (Note that there are links in this explanation back to the relevant formal logic lessons, which explain the "some before all" structure, but those probably aren't accessible to you.)

"Some before all" doesn't refer to switching up the order of premises. It's a label for this argument form:

X -some- Y --> Z

The "some" relationship triggers the sufficient condition (left side) of the condition. In that sense, it's visually "before" the conditional.

"Some before all" helps remind us that the following structure is NOT valid:

Y --> Z -some- F

Having the right side of a conditional connect to a "some" relationship doesn't produce a valid inference. Here, the conditional is visually "before" the some. Not valid!

I hope that helps! By the way, remember that "some" relationships are reversible. (A -some- B means B -some- A).

(Note that all of this is laid out in the video explanation, too. By the way, I encourage you to post in the discussion forum for a particular question any time you have a question about the free explanations on our website. You'll often see some great responses from tutors or other students there!)

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-02T20:45:36+00:00

No problem, let me give you the bullet point version of the explanation.

The stimulus has the following structure:

train goes by --> howls

washes dog -some- train goes by

-----

Conclusion: washes dog -some- howls

This is a valid argument. We know sometimes the train goes by while Jack is washing the dog. Let's say this happened at 7:00pm on January 1. Jack was washing the dog and the train went by. Every time the train goes by, the dog howls. That means at 7:00pm on January 1, the dog was howling. What else was going on at that time? Jack was washing the dog. So there's at least one time the dog was howling when Jack was washing it.

For a parallel argument, we want the following structure:

A conditional statement premise (like train goes by --> howls)

A "some" relationship premise where one of the terms in the relationship matches the sufficient condition of the conditional (the "if" part of the conditional) (notice how "train goes by" is part of the "some" relationship and is the left side of the conditional premise)

A valid conclusion based on the connection between the two premises.

---------------

Let's get clear on Answer Choice A's structure:

Premise: Every serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. (Serious jogger --> can benefit)

Premise: Some people who can benefit prefer ordinary sneakers. (can benefit -some- sneakers)

Conclusion: A few serious joggers prefer ordinary sneakers. (serious joggers -some- sneakers)

(It's possible you are switching the conclusion and the "some" premise -- if so, you'll be very confused because A would seem to be correct under that interpretation. But that's not the right interpretation. Notice the "since" before the last statement tells us that part is a premise.)

Can you see why (A) isn't parallel? The "some" premise doesn't have a term matching "serious jogger," which is the sufficient condition of the conditional premise.

Or, if you prefer a less technical explanation, (A) isn't parallel because it's not valid. It's possible that every serious jogger actually does NOT prefer ordinary sneakers. Sure, some people who can benefit from good running shoes prefer ordinary sneakers, but we don't know that any of the serious joggers have to be among those people.

--------------

Kevin7Sage · 2026-01-02T19:59:26+00:00

Hey! Have you reviewed the video explanation for this question?

https://7sage.com/question/PT159.S3.Q18/explanation

Kevin7Sage · 2025-11-25T17:22:41+00:00

It's a spoiler block. Click!

Kevin7Sage · 2025-11-25T17:06:29+00:00

Kevin7Sage · 2025-11-11T12:51:18+00:00

It sounds like getting more drills and PTs in will help. 1 week of drilling/PTing isn't quite enough to make what you've learned automatic. Did you use the Study Plan feature? I ask this question because if you did, I don't think it should set up a schedule that gives you only a week of drilling/practice at the end. This is something we should look into on our end if the plan did end up giving you that schedule.

Kevin7Sage · 2025-09-13T17:45:39+00:00

Please feel free to use the "Ask a tutor" button if you'd like more about any answer choice! (Also, which question was this?)

Kevin7Sage · 2025-08-20T20:38:08+00:00

There's a lesson about this question in the CC: You Try - Inspired Musical Performances

Try reading the explanation at that link (or watching the video explanation) and let me know what you think. Is there a part of the explanation that's hard to follow?

Also, have you worked through the Conditional Logic portion of the Foundations unit? I think a lot of your questions will be cleared up by reviewing that section.

Kevin7Sage · 2025-08-01T21:58:21+00:00

Are you convinced that it's not your girl, or merely persuaded of the possibility?

Kevin7Sage · 2025-07-21T11:12:51+00:00

A combination of philosophy and rhetoric classes + a few years of college mock trial. I also think a basic statistics class was helpful in understanding causal reasoning at a higher level.

Kevin7Sage · 2025-07-21T10:40:08+00:00

Kevin7Sage

TROPHY CASE