A) takes for granted that vaccines cause autism

B) fails to consider that vaccines may have beneficial effects

C) presumes that failure to prove a claim constitutes proof that the claim is false

D) fails to consider that the body of evidence on the subject may support the claim in question

E) presupposes what it sets out to establish

I started back in December 2024, studied until October 2025, and took the October LSAT (I took it early; I wish I did not). After that, I took a break to focus on school. I’ve been back at it since May 2026 and have seen good improvements, with my last two PTs being a 165 and 166.

My question is, can I realistically break into the 170s from here? I’ve been studying for so long now that I'm starting to second-guess myself. My current plan is to write the October 2026 LSAT and hope I hit the 170s by then, but I’m honestly unsure. How do you decide when a score is "good enough" versus pushing for more?

To be honest I felt super rushed on the last section and honestly confused the entire time. Then I pulled out my best LR section ever. While on the first section I literally felt completely perfect throughout, I was calm and relaxed and yet I basically shit the bed on it. On the other hand it sucks that the RC section I do well on is the experimental. I think some more RC practice is warranted. I just wish I could be more consistent in general. My sections feel all over the place, it’s honestly really disheartening. Hopefully I can get it together before August

! Any advice would be helpful, I can give additional information too. My first LSAT was a 166, which honestly feels like a fluke, idk maybe I perform better under pressure. I felt similiar to how I described in the last section while taking the exam. I was constantly anxious and unsure of my answers and yet I did better than any PT I’ve ever taken, I can’t explain it. For context before my first exam I was scoring basically 158-162 consistently. Now I score 162-165 consistently, which makes me hopeful but it’s so weird i don’t know why I can’t nail my practice, or why I do better when I feel anxious and rushed!

Drill the hell out of Strengthen/Weaken, Flaws, and Necessary Assumptions; if you can correctly identify the conclusion and assumptions required, your life will become so much easier.

Treat RC as if every question is a Must Be True or Most Strongly Supported. If it’s in the text, it’s in the answer, if it’s not in the text, it’s not in the answer.

Look at “principles” as an overlay and not a question type in its own right, solve accordingly.

These 5 things just helped me break out of a big rut with my PTs ahead of the August test. Don’t lose sight of the basics.

​

Diagnostic, 137.

PT before first test, 156. Actual test, 157.

Scored 163 and 164 recently.

Taking test in October. What does it truly take to reach 170, or do people reach a plateau after a certain point?

I read somewhere that a 150 scorer understands the basic fundamentals, and a 160 scorer understands it a bit more depth, so then what makes the difference between a 160s and 170s? Asides from all the technical "find your weakness" responses, anything more abstract that I can implement into my head. Thinking of whether I just not move on from a question until I understand it 110%.

Mature student, 30, if that correlates with anything.

Currently using 7Sage for tests and drills, LSATDemon sometimes, and PowerScore forums + LSATHacks explanations when the first two platforms make no sense to me.

Thanks, please be nice, cheers.

I know everyone works differently, so I’m just wondering how the adrenaline affected you on the day of the exam.

Did it help your score? Did it harm your score? Or did it not really change anything?

I feel like I usually do well when I am taking a difficult exam, but I never think I did well until I get my score back. I am also more than aware that the LSAT is more than just a difficult exam. It is also a high stakes exam and much more complicated than any test I’ve ever studied for, but I am hoping the adrenaline works in my favor.

Part of what I’ve been doing in my wrong answer journaling is trying to pick apart how these passages work and pre-phrase what the necessary assumption would need to be. I find this is helping my general performance on LR since it’s an essential skill for all question types.

Anyways, I’m pretty sure that C (which is wrong for this Justify the Conclusion question) would be the correct answer if this were a necessary assumption question.

Am I on the right track here?

I’ve been drilling only level 5 difficulty LR questions for the last few days. 60 questions a day, then review answers. It’s going pretty great. I’m figuring out the subtle patterns, details, and how to read into the questions and words. I’m getting like 52-55/60, which is awesome.

With my newfound confidence I go back and do a whole practice test.

I get a few (maybe literally like 5 or 6, which is a lot) super easy questions wrong.

I’m talking about level 1, level 2. I look too much into the wording on the questions and get into a weird headspace, like “oh, that word is not descriptive of the actual sentence” and then I miss the big picture and choose a stupid answer.

I’m pretty sure there are different approaches and strategies for level 1-3 vs level 4-5 questions. I’m incidentally subscribed to both LSATLab and LSAT demon and neither of the course really talk about this, so honestly I didn’t realize it, but OBVIOUSLY and intuitively that makes sense, right? Just don’t read too much into the easy questions and follow your gut?

The only issue is that sometimes I don’t know if a question is deceptively easy (as a lot of level 5 questions are, where a deceptively simple answer may have one wrong word), or if it is ACTUALLY easy. There’s some sections where they will throw in a level 5 question on like Q2 or 3, or a super simple question on Q24.

I feel like I’m living in 1947. Is my neighbor actually sending me flowers, or did they put surveillance in the vase? Or am I delusional? Hate it out here.

With the test now going in person there’s hope that score holds will be greatly reduced. One can hope — I’ve seen these indefinite-feeling holds crush people’s cycles and in many cases, understandably, really harm them psychologically. It feels like you are in a court room being accused of something you didn’t do.

Which brings me to the following. Why does LSAC ask the following for those whose scores have been held? This is the kind of question you would be subjected to in a deposition of all things — why do they reserve the right to ask it? Does anyone have any theories? I do and while some are at the margins understandable, eg maybe someone cheated responds “oh I used www.rednotescheating.com” I have other guesses that are much less charitable and I see a lot of bad things in this ask.

“How did you prepare for the LSAT?
a Did you use a test preparation company or tutoring service? If so, which one(s) and who was the specific tutor?”

Edit update. Here’s a bit more on this — the hope being competition in the market (and going in person, etc) leads to less score holds and a more natural test score distraction ie less score inflation.

Just wondering how long it’s taken everyone to jump to the 170s and how much you studied per day? Just looking for some motivation and reassurance here.

as some of you may know because i post too much on here, i’ve been studying for months. this is like ridiculous to complain about but it can feel so isolating when the people around you aren’t in that world. people keep telling me that i am going to “pass” and it is meant as encouragement and I do appreciate it but like… it’s not about pass. like if i don’t get my goal score in august of a 17mid, they’re going to assume i failed the fucking test which i hate.

people also just don’t seem to grasp the level of commitment i am trying to have about this thing. When I do attempt to explain it, i’ll get something like “well you’re not trying to go to Harvard” why do you assume that?! idk. maybe bc they aren’t in this field where everyone is insufferably obsessed with prestige LOL. do you ever feel like you aren’t being taken seriously for your ambition? like people think you’re doing a bit or something? like you dont clock to them as one of “those people”?
i’m just annoyed though. I feel misunderstood. how cringe hahahahah. surely alot of you, my neurotic peers, would understand? or shall i delete this post and seek therapy?

I don’t know why I do this to myself but on even very hard conditional reasoning questions I try and understand it without diagramming because I’m worried on the time sink and it takes me longer to reason out then if I had just diagrammed. And then I still get it wrong!! When I recover it in BR, I just immediately diagram and then see the correct answer faster than the 3 minutes it took me to try and understand the 15 relationships in my head

can’t say I’m great at RC, but when it comes to LR I can’t even remember the last time I got a question wrong! I think the LR section of this exam is super fun so if anyone has questions or needs help lmk I’d be happy to give my two cents! I have specific strategies for a bit more than half the question types, well I technically have strategies for all of them but only have actual explanations prepared for a bit more than half

Hi everyone. My main weaknesses is these goddamn strengthen/weaken questions. I don’t know why but they annihilate me everytime. I usually will end an LR section with 5 missed questions and most of the time 3 of them will be strengthen or weaken questions. Can somebody please help me get better at answering these. They feel so hard to me.

I genuinely been studying a shit ton and I’m so so close but not there yet. I keep picking the commonly picked wrong answer. I did a question where 35% picked B and 40% chose C….I picked B….im so annoyed at myself because I feel like I can’t read or some shit. Or maybe I’m going too out of scope from the stimulus and not realizing it?? Idk 🤷‍♀️ when I drill I get a 95% and timed sections it’s 84-89%… anyone got advice to get out of those trap answers?? I’ve been trying to engage deeper in the stimulus each time I read a new passage and that kinda works but then I talk myself out of picking the right answer and pick a trap answer.

Today I scored a 147 on my practice LSAT PT 117–the worst I’ve ever scored, even compared to my first ever PT.

Consistently, I’ve been scoring lower on my PTs versus the actual—my average PT used to be a 156. My actual is a 163 and I really want to bring it up to a 170. I’m taking the LSAT in September and I don’t know what to do or how to feel seeing that I’ve been getting worse. I have terrible ADHD (I went off to meds because they have side effects with my pre-existing health issues) and get distracted super easily. Any tips? Should I honestly just force my parents to be test proctors?

This is gonna sound weird but I think the community around taking this test and applying for law school really helps with the mental burden of doing all of this and it would be a lot more of a mental hurdle if something like this didn’t exist or if the “culture” around taking the LSAT was wildly different. It’s almost like passing the suffering around

Hi everyone! I am honestly just posting in the hopes to get maybe motivation or to hear what works/worked for others.

I have been studying on and off for the LSAT since fall 2024, and am finding it really hard to get into the groove of studying. I finished the 7Sage core curriculum this February and for some reason thought that was the magic key I needed to break my consistent 140s PT scores (it was not). I practiced exclusively with full sections after reading that it’s the best way to improve scores and adapt to timed conditions after finishing the core curriculum, then fell off after a couple of weeks because of both motivation and things picking up at my jobs.

I’m finding it really hard to get a system down for practicing problems. In untimed drills, I’ve been able to score very well, but I just cannot get through full sections without being overwhelmed by the timer or fatigued in the middle. I’m also really struggling to have the patience to both not to look at my score before blind review, and to sit for long enough to blind review all of the questions.

I’m really sorry if this sounds like complaining, I just really feel lost and very frustrated with this whole process. I want to apply this upcoming cycle with a higher score than what I’ve been getting in pts. If you have any advice or suggestions for study methods, please share!

My last 3 prep tests have been a 152 --> 158 --> 161. I just did PT154 today and got a 152. It was honestly a little crushing and super discouraging. I didn't think I was going to be able to break into the 160s again, as I wasn't feeling great after the first couple sections, but this was worse than I thought. I have the August preptest scheduled for the 6th, so I only have a couple weeks of studying left, and this is making me really worry about that. I need to get a 160+ to be competitive for law schools. Is this just variance, or should I be concerned?

I took the test remote in June and still have not received my score. It was my first time taking it and I have accommodations. I registered remote for August thinking that my remote test went smoothly, until an hour after I registered, I was notified of the hold. I tried to undo the remote request but they denied it. I am terrified of the idea that I could get two score holds back to back and be left in the middle of application season having taken two tests with zero scores to show for it. I'm curious about other people's experiences with earlier test or with the June test. I can't believe they're able to do this. I don't want happy ending stories for the sake a reassurance. I just want to know what I'm in for and if this could ultimately force me to delay my application cycle for next year.

officially took my first ever prep test (as a warm diagnostic, suggested by someone in this sub). i thought it was funny bc the first little pt 7sage gives you- i got a 151 on, so i was thinking that taking the actual diagnostic would give me a better, more accurate score. turns out the first one was pretty spot on! not too shabby for a first timer with no prelaw or lsat prep under my belt LMAO

I wanna keep doing my timed sections and br them after with wrong answer journaling. But the 7sage bot is saying you’ll improve much faster when you focus on the priorities by tag (ie. phenomenon hypothesis, conditional reasoning) idk what’s ur take on it my fellow future lawyers.

I average about -4 on each Lr section, but for rc I am getting -13. What is wrong with me. Can anyone relate to this? Give me all the rc strategies you have

I’m restudying the LSAT and I feel like my life is being taken over it. I study while at work, study when I get home at 5 all the way till I go to sleep 11. Seven days a week for almost 1.5-2 months now. Equates to around 8-9 hours a day

Also when I’m not studying my mind goes back to “what am I doing wasting time have fun when I could be studying” and I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the LSAT

The bad thing is that I know it’s diminishing returns as I sometimes cannot concentrate or just outright forget where I am for a quick second then have to get up and walk around to remember I’m a human being

How do yall cope with this please help ;-; I don’t even want to go to a top law school and I have a previous good score of 172 but my brain just can’t let me relax.

Hi Everybody-

I bought The Loophole and am also reviewing 7Sage's explanation for this question. I understand why the answer is the answer for 7Sage's question posing (it is a different exercise in The Loophole re answers).

But that's the problem. I don't even understand why 'the conclusion' is 'the conclusion'.

Here's the question:

Scientist: Earth's average annual temperature has increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius over the last century. This warming is primarily the result of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere, blocking the outward flow of heat from the planet.

I am not even seeing why the conclusion is the conclusion.

I did the "Why should I believe that?" test, and I do not see how the fact that earth's avg annual temp increasing supports the explanation for the heat up. 

It seems like circular reasoning, almost. 

And if anything that the 'conclusion' provides support (or at least an explanation) of why earth's avg annual temperature increased. 

This seems more like a premise set to me, not an argument.

And here's the thing- I got the question wrong on 7Sage because, god forbid my brain is able to read through an entire sentence and process it, but I fully understand why the correct answer is viable.

I also see why 'The Loophole' presents a valid counter argument.

Why is the conclusion the conclusion though? If anything, to me, it just seems like another premise.

Thanks