Improving on the LSAT means finding the problems in your process, building solutions that address them, and learning to apply those solutions consistently. Read more about how I use every tool available to make that process faster, clearer, and more reliable for my students.
From the free consultation to test day
Bring the questions, frustrations, and recurring problems that have been showing up in your preparation. We look at what you have been doing, how you have been studying, and where the process is no longer producing the improvement you want.
The goal: Identify the first problem worth solving.
After the call, I document the issues we identified and the sequence in which I would address them. You can then decide whether you want help carrying out that plan.
The goal: Decide with a clear picture of what the work would actually involve.
We review the materials, courses, and tests you have already used, choose the freshest useful diagnostic available, and establish exactly how the timed attempt and blind review should work. I also set up your course access and shared folder.
The goal: Start with a benchmark we can trust.
Take the diagnostic under normal timed conditions and save your answers without checking them.
The goal: Capture what your current reasoning looks like when the clock is running.
Before seeing the correct answers, return to the test without the clock. Explain what each question is asking, what reasoning or passage evidence matters, why your answer works, why the alternatives fail, and where you remain uncertain.
The goal: See what your reasoning looks like without time pressure.
I compare your timed work, blind review, and explanations to see where your process breaks down. We prioritize those issues based on frequency, importance, and how much improvement fixing them could unlock elsewhere.
The goal: Know exactly what we are trying to improve and why.
For each priority, we develop a concrete way to handle it: what to notice, what to prove, what patterns to recognize, and what to do if your first approach is not enough. We then reintroduce speed after we prove your new process is reliable and consistent.
The goal: Replace the old process with one you can apply consistently.
Each session gives us another chance to compare performance, update the diagnosis, and refine the plan. We repeat the cycle (test, blind review, diagnose, practice, and retest) until the reasoning is both strong enough and fast enough.
The goal: Continually adjust your study roadmap toward your target score.
Turning a missed question into a useful change
A missed question does not automatically tell us what you need to study. The problem could come from any number of places: understanding the stimulus, identifying the task, finding the gap, testing the answers, or eliminating choices. If we focus only on right and wrong answers, we delay finding and solving the right problem.
Wrong-Answer Journal Example
During your answer explanation, you treated “Only members may vote” as if it meant that every member may vote. The statement makes membership necessary; it does not make membership sufficient. So we know that every voter is a member, not that every member can vote.
When a conditional (logical) statement uses “only,” use it to identify the necessary condition and confirm the direction of the relationship before drawing an inference. Here, someone who may vote must be a member. Being a member alone does not establish that they may vote.
We test that correction on new questions. And when you get comfortable, we move on to the next skill.
Timed test and blind review
The timed test shows what you can currently do under pressure. Blind review shows what you can do when the clock is removed. The gap between the two helps us decide what to work on.
This usually means the underlying reasoning is already strong. The main task is not rebuilding the approach, but making the reasoning you already have faster, more automatic, and easier to reproduce consistently within the time limit.
If more time does not produce much improvement, then time is probably not the main barrier. The underlying reasoning itself needs more work. We focus on strengthening that reasoning first, before trying to make the process faster.
A correct answer does not always mean the skill is reliable. If several skills are each around 80% reliable, a difficult question requiring all of them can expose the combined weakness. We therefore check the reasoning, not just the result.
After the blind review
The blind review gives us a clearer picture of what needs work. From there, we decide together which skills deserve the most attention first. We use three things to make that decision.
Some skills are worth prioritizing because they appear often.
Weaken questions are a good example. They are common enough that improving them can affect several questions on a single test. That frequency alone can make the skill worth focused attention, even before considering how it connects to other skills.
Other skills earn priority because they support many other parts of the test.
Finding the conclusion is one example. Before we can identify the flaw, strengthen or weaken the argument, or determine what an assumption needs to do, we need to know exactly what the argument is trying to prove.
Some weaknesses are relatively easy to isolate and correct.
Conditional indicators are a good example. If “only,” “unless,” and “requires” cause problems, we can learn to recognize those indicators and drill until the translations become automatic. How quickly we can make that kind of correction determines where it belongs in the plan.
| Priority | Skill to Improve | Where We See It | How Often It’s Tested | How Foundational | Ease of Improving |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identifying the exact gap between the premises and conclusion | Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen, and Assumption misses | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | Identifying the support relationships among the parts of an argument | Main Conclusion and Argument Part misses; difficulty separating premises from intermediate conclusions | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | Paraphrasing a claim without making it stronger or weaker | Inference misses involving shifts such as some → most or can → will | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | Distinguishing percentages from absolute numbers | A small group of Flaw and Inference misses involving numerical comparisons | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 5 | Matching arguments by the logical roles and relationships of their parts | Parallel Reasoning questions with a high time cost | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 6 | Avoiding conclusions about an individual based only on a group average | Occasional Flaw or Inference misses | 1 | 2 | 2 |
The free consultation is the first step of the process described above. Bring what you are running into, and we will work out what to change first.