Recent Comments

same

Ryan Han was a great help during my LSAT preparation! I worked with Ryan the two weeks leading up to my test date, and he helped refine the work I had already done in the 7-Sage course. His brought a great attitude, excellent knowledge, and a willingness to tailor the sessions for maximum benefit. I ended up with a nine-point increase. My only regret was not working with him sooner.

I also found this aspect a bit confusing initially, until I realized the question I was answering. All Cassie needs to do is raise a counter to Melvin's argument. Weaken questions do not need to provide concrete proof, just evidence to the contrary. Melvin claims that hiring more workers is a prerequisite to reducing work loads, on top of it being very difficult to hire more workers in the first place. Leading to his conclusion that reducing client loads is not feasible. However, what if reducing work loads led to hiring more workers? All answer choice A does is flip this chain of causality, effectively providing an objection to this presumed prerequisite, which is what the writers of this question are looking for. Hope this helps!

I’ve learned that paying close attention to what is relevant to the argument in the stimulus can really make a difference with all question types. For me that framework helped clarify JY’s explanation about what made B wrong and A right moreso than immediately zoning in on B’s usage of the concepts of “excessive spraying” and “slight reduction”.

The argument is saying that using genetically engineered crops is likely to help wildlife populations recover; this is the point the stimulus is driving us toward. A provides us with something that we necessarily HAVE to assume to arrive there. If you negate A so that using genetically engineered crops DON’T cause less harm, then what’s the point of using them at all?

What made B wrong for me, then, was the fact that all we’re told in the stimulus is that “excessive spraying” has harmed wildlife populations, period. Will spraying less help them recover? Who knows, given what we’re told.

How this is not a 5/5 STAR (no pun) question is mind blowing to me

Fell for the trap too.

#help. I understand why A is right but I'm not sure why B is wrong.

I chose B because I interpreted the flaw to lie with the author conflating percentages numbers for populations of different sizes. If there are 100 young voters and 50% of them vote (i.e 50) while 75% of the 28 older voters (i.e 24) vote, the author misrepresents the higher percentage and they can't say that older people vote more often.

Is the reason B is wrong is because the conclusion focuses on likelihood? So the author can still validly argue that the older voters are more "likely" to vote with my example?

I got a minus -8 on this section after 18 months of studying. I'm out. I can't do this. I'm not smart enough. Good luck everyone

To summarize the psychiatrist's hypothesis, they think that spending is not correlated with depression/anxiety. C proposes that spending and depression/anxiety actually are correlated, which weakens the psychiatrist's hypothesis. A, B, and E give examples of no correlation, which strengthen the psychiatrist's hypothesis. D strengthens by verifying the results.

I wasnt so sure about B because the birds hunt during the day light. For me it explained why they both would be more nocturnal (bc the bird will eat em) but not why one be more nocturnal than the other especially considering it hunts during the day only.

i got all the mapping done right but i just didnt understand the stim. Its also so crazy to see that these harder questions are just the basics wrapped around something to throw you off

OH MY GOD I ALMOST HAD IT DURING THE TIMED TEST AND UNDER THE TIME LIMIT!!!! WHY DID I CHANGE IT TO E
at least i got it again during the blind review,

It goes to show that difficulty is subjective. I answered this under time and with ease but have had 2 and 3 star questions kick my ass. Any problem you get wrong is a five star question....don't buy into the rat poison because of difficulty ratings.

It might be helpful to read the word "EXCEPT" next time...such an easy miss

I did the same thing. It seems that more modern LSATs are doing away with the "in a vacuum" thinking of older exams and allowing us to include reasonable, real world assumptions. I'm finding a lot of answers give us that leeway In older test, C would be wrong but now it isn't. It sucks because on 7sage we are explicitly taught against making such assumptions.

Working with Himaja was one of the most valuable decisions I made during my LSAT preparation. After receiving my October score, I had only a 2.5-week window before the November exam, and she created a targeted, highly personalized boot camp that focused precisely on the areas where I needed improvement.

What sets her apart is her exceptional ability to adapt her instruction to multiple learning styles. She can shift seamlessly between analytical breakdowns, visual frameworks, strategic guidance, and mindset coaching—always matching what you need in the moment. Her mastery of the LSAT is evident in every explanation, and her clarity, patience, and calm communication style make even complex concepts feel approachable.

In a very short period, my entire approach to the test changed. I felt more structured, more confident, and far better equipped to handle the exam. If you need someone who can deliver meaningful progress on a tight timeline while maintaining professionalism, precision, and genuine support, Himaja is outstanding.

Truly the best LSAT tutoring experience I’ve had.

Thank you

David Cavada was an excellent tutor who helped me feel truly prepared for the LSAT. He was flexible and accommodating, and he made the studying process much easier by keeping me accountable and identifying improvement areas for me. Our sessions were always helpful and I became much better at my weakest areas in a matter of weeks. He always had helpful suggestions when I was feeling stuck and catered to my schedule and needs. Thanks David!

Hello! I would very much appreciate feedback! Thank you!

I'll add my own feedback here so people can focus on the things that I am neglecting.
The socrates quote is not needed...esp because i couldn't think of the quote
The balance of the passage is off. I took it under time conditions and spent 85% on the first facet
"take up the space and started encroaching on more spaces that were once jobs" is poorly written. Take better care of what you are trying to say and this may not happen.
I had a lot more to say about the importance of an enphasis of community in campus cutlture, but i didn't plan it out as much and it didn't end up being fleshed out as a result. So plan things even I feel like I know what I want to say generally

The purpose of college and universities are singular: to prepare their students for their futures. There are, however, two halves of these students futures: their professional and personal lives. If college preparation were to neglect one of these halves, it clearly be against the best interest of the student, for a critical characteristic of a good life is one where a good balance can be reached between these two halves.

Fortunately, universities and colleges are multifaceted. Their first facet is as an academic institution. In this capacity, emphasis on career preparation is absolutely essential. Course work should be, as perspective 4 indicates, "emphasizing dialogue over monologue and problem-solving over sheer information retention." In the modern age, we are often in competition with machines. One category we could never hope to win is information retention and storage. As a result, some say it is time to evolve our coursework accordingly, despite the push back from traditionalists. I believe Socrates was quoted saying how he lamented on the increasing prevalence of books since it was replacing the information retention of the mind. Which is to say, the transition of offloading mental information into technology has been on for a while and it is fair for institutions to recognize this and make according changes.

More recently, however, generative AI has begun to take up the space and started encroaching on more spaces that were once jobs. And while it is still in its infancy, we can only expect this technology to become increasingly powerful in its ability to problem-solve, and make interpretations. What does this mean for students, and by extension, universities? Well, surprisingly, it spells a return to some traditions. Having experts on topics who have a wealth of information at their disposal that they have personally checked and confirmed allows them to act as an informational safeguard against AI, ensuring that algorithmic artifacts are not resulting in undue influence on the output of the machine. Such erroneous outputs, as AI is used for more foundational purposes, may eventually result in catastrophe. A college educated expert, therefore, may be instrumental to ensuring that these outputs are tied to reality.

The most important skill a university education can provide is using the tools they will use during their profession. If you are studying computer science, then it is certainly AI. If you are studying Law, and generative AI will muddle your billables in the future, then a focus on the tools that lawyers have, such as electronic patent filing systems, are crucial. Labs are also an essential part of several paths to familiarize students with the physical realities of the theories they learn about. These are the building blocks to allow these students apply their education, as they will eventually have to do for their professions.

Universities also play a role in helping students via technical clubs, as well as internships and co-ops. These opportunities should be scouted by universities and highly encouraged as they not only allow students to build their skills in their desired field, but allow them to find that desired field in the first place. One crucial aspect of that determination is in how it affects their personal life.

Which brings us to the second facet of the college or university: the community. Dormitory/campus culture, social clubs, events, and more are critical for not just attracting students, but truly helping them succeed in their desired future. College is an inflection point for many people. As perspective 2 states, "College provided the context in which I could reflect on my values, the reasons and evidence for them, and whether they are the right values for me." This is a critical step for any young adult, and to deemphasize the previously mentioned core features of college life would be detrimental to this growth. It is during these college facilitated events that such growth is fostered.

Explanation for question 23 is awful. No reference to the passage at all or acknowledgment of the specific "critical stage" mentioned in the answer

#help I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around the stimulus. What in the world is the paradox here?

Absolutely!

I am disappointed to say that the 7Sage tutoring failed me. I had Micheal Flesse, who encouraged me to sign up for the November LSAT, 2025. Upon starting the tutoring sessions at a 150, I was hopeful to reach my goal of 165-170 within 3 months, since I’d finished the core curriculum. This was not the case. Though the first couple lessons grew to an increase in my average LSAT to 155, I never saw a bump after. I believe he did not adjust the study schedule to my personal needs, but only started seeing how I performed live for the test in the last two sessions. I attempted to give suggestions to possible solutions as this was my first time ever having a tutor. However, I don't know what a good tutor looks like or how to know somethings wrong after following the plan exactly.
I’m disheartened in writing this review, as I really applied myself to succeed on 7Sage in order to achieve my goal of getting into law school. Instead this was a costly decision that wasted both a lot of my time and money. I provided a two-stars review to give credit to his kindness and flexibility (and bump in 5-points), but unfortunately, those things won’t help me on the next LSAT I need to now take.

Essentially, they're stubborn (the peeps who gave less inaccurate details). Their stories never really changed, regardless of who was questioning them. The other ppl, on the other hand, their stories did change; they were more influenced by both attorneys. So, of course, by the time the second lawyer had his time with them (more inaccurate peeps), their stories were going to be more accurate than the first group, because they were more easily influenced to fix the inaccuracies in their stories.