Abigail, 147 and working toward 160: a live LSAT coaching session
This is what LSAT Unplugged coaching looks like. Abigail came in at 147, aiming for 160 on the September LSAT. Steve Schwartz coached him live for about 24 minutes on both, and the whole session and transcript are below.
The numbers here are where Abigail started and the goal we set together in this session. Individual results vary.
- Student: Abigail
- Score when recorded: 147
- Goal: 160
- Target test: September
- Situation: Recent cold diagnostic of 147, ran out of time and guessed on questions, will be working full-time after graduation, aiming for about 15 hours of prep per week over 4.5 months
- Focus: both
- Worked on: necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, must be true, inference
What we fixed in this session
The idea is you make the mistakes now, in practice, so you can learn from them and not make the same mistake on test day.
Steve Schwartz
This is one session, in the middle of the work. I've been coaching the LSAT since 2005, and every session runs the same way: find the real problem, fix the process, reset the plan.
I diagnosed that Abigail confuses necessary assumption and sufficient assumption questions under time pressure even though she understands the difference untimed, and prescribed timed drills mixing both types to make the skill automatic.
Her pacing plan (first 10 questions in 10 minutes) breaks down because she has no fallback when she gets stuck, and taught her to flag and skip a question after about 90 seconds instead of getting tunnel vision.
The plan: I diagnosed that her reading comp slowdown comes from rereading passages multiple times instead of building a mental map, and taught her to tag each paragraph's purpose on the first read so she can locate details in about 5 lines instead of rereading.
Where the session landed: Abigail said the call gave her a clearer structure for tracking her traps and confirmed that drilling necessary versus sufficient assumption questions could get her a big point difference, and she committed to applying the plan instead of just watching videos.
If your prep looks like Abigail's did, that's fixable in one session.
Book your free LSAT tutoring lesson
In Abigail's words
The pieces make sense when I watch the videos and then I go do it on my own and have no clue what I'm doing.
Abigail
If I don't understand the stimulus, I focus too much time on it, and then it's a spiral of not knowing what I'm doing.
Abigail
It's one thing to watch the videos and another to actually apply it in repetition.
Abigail
Questions people ask about LSAT Unplugged coaching
What happens in an LSAT Unplugged coaching session?
The coach finds the specific habit that's costing points, fixes the process, and sets the plan for the weeks ahead. In Abigail's case: Abigail confuses necessary assumption and sufficient assumption questions under time pressure even though she understands the difference untimed.
Who runs the sessions?
Steve Schwartz recorded this one. Every LSAT Unplugged coach scored 170 or higher on an official LSAT, and students are matched to a coach on learning style and weak areas.
Where can I see finished results?
On the student reviews page at unpluggedprep.com/reviews, with video interviews and official scores.
Learn the fixes yourself: necessary assumption questions, sufficient assumption questions, must be true questions.
Student reviews and finished results.
Full session transcript
Recorded July 2025.
Steve: It's rare that I find something where, if you fix this alone, it could easily add 5 points to your score overnight. This is Abigail, and she's looking to go from a 147 to 160 and beyond in the next 4 months. My name is Steve Schwartz, and I've been teaching the LSAT for the past 20 years. Today, Abigail is going to bring me her biggest LSAT challenges, and I'm going to help her address them.
Steve: Hello, Abigail.
Abigail: Hi, Steve. How are you?
Steve: I'm good, thanks. It's great to finally meet you face to face. How's everything been coming along?
Abigail: Things have been going okay so far. I'm still getting used to the program and everything about the LSAT in general.
Steve: Before we dive in, I have a couple of questions to get a better background on where you're at, and then we can discuss strategies. Where are you scoring right now?
Abigail: We got a 147, so not the greatest. Definitely not where I want to be, and I also ran out of time, so a lot of the questions were guessed.
Steve: With those caveats, what are your ultimate goals for the LSAT? Where are you looking to score?
Abigail: I would be happy with 160, and anything above that would be even better.
Steve: Cool, so at least a 15 point increase or so. And how long do we have till your test?
Abigail: I would like to take the LSAT in September. If I have to push it back a little, I can, but I really want to aim for September.
Steve: Okay, so we've got about 4 and 1/2 months till then. How many hours per week do you think you could put in over the next 4 months?
Abigail: Aiming for about 15. I'm going to be working full-time after graduation, so it could be a little subject to change, but that's the goal.
Steve: A lot of students panic when they score in the 140s on their cold diagnostic, but it's not a disaster, it's just a baseline. Abigail hadn't done any real prep yet, she'd run out of time, guessed on a ton of questions, and still landed in the high 140s. That's actually a pretty solid starting point, because the LSAT is learnable with structure, time, and the right strategy. It's totally possible to jump 15 points or more. For students starting off in the 140s, I see those kinds of gains all the time.
What are your weak areas on the test right now?
Abigail: Definitely timing. When I do drill sets untimed, I'm scoring significantly better than when I do things timed. Also getting down the language, sometimes when I review the problems I get where I went wrong, but it's little pieces of information I didn't anticipate were vital to understanding the argument. I also need more work with reading comprehension.
Steve: Got it. What's your approach to reading comp right now?
Abigail: The weakest part for me is the comparison passages. I attended a class last week that went over tips on that, so I'm trying to incorporate it. But the majority of my practice has been on logical reasoning, I haven't really gotten to the reading comprehension part of the tutoring services yet.
Steve: Okay. There may be some adjustments once you join more reading comp classes. But on logical reasoning, you mentioned timing as a big issue. What's your current pacing approach?
Abigail: I've been trying the first 10 questions in 10 minutes approach, but then I get stuck on one question and the next thing I know I've lost 7 minutes. Then I get to the end, which is obviously the harder questions, and there's not a lot of time left. I don't really have an approach for what to do when the first-10-in-10 plan doesn't work out.
Steve: Got it, so you recognize the issue but don't necessarily have the solution.
Abigail: Yeah.
Steve: That's definitely something I can help with. First 10 in 10 minutes is a good benchmark if you're realistically aiming for 160 plus, which you are. That means you can't afford to get bogged down anywhere, but especially not in those first 10. Is there a typical question number where you're getting bogged down, or is it anywhere?
Abigail: I don't know if it's a specific question number, but it's definitely with necessary versus sufficient assumption questions. Something about it just hasn't clicked in my brain yet, so I end up spending a lot more time on those than I want to, and then time's running out.
Steve: Good news, this is actually a really easy fix. It's rare I find something where, if you fix this alone, it could add 5 points overnight, because there's low hanging fruit here. Necessary assumption is one of the most common question types, sufficient assumption is less common, but if we add the two together it's even more than either individually. It could get you another 3 to 5 points on the test, doubled because there are 2 sections of logical reasoning. So first: when you look at a question, are you able to determine which type you're looking at?
Abigail: Yeah.
Steve: Give me your quick 10 second version of the difference, just so I make sure you've got it.
Abigail: For necessary assumption we'd look for less extreme language in the answer choices. For sufficient assumption, it could be very extreme as long as it gets the job done. I understand what I'm looking for in the options, but I'm confused about how it relates back to the conclusion. The pieces make sense when I watch the videos, and then I go do it on my own and have no clue what I'm doing.
Steve: It sounds like you have a really clear understanding of how you approach them. For necessary assumption we're looking for more moderate language, because that's more likely to have been required by the stimulus than extreme language would be. For sufficient assumption, it's okay if it's extreme as long as it gets the job done. The correct sufficient assumption answer guarantees the conclusion 100%, leaving no ambiguity, meaning it, combined with the evidence, guarantees the conclusion must logically follow. For necessary assumption, we're looking for what underlying assumption needs to be the case, taking the stimulus as given, in order for the conclusion to logically follow from the evidence. Can you also tell the difference based on question stems?
Abigail: Yeah, I've been looking for the keywords in the question stems, and I think I have a solid grasp of that.
Steve: Good, so it sounds like you're saying all the right things in isolation here on this call. The question is what happens in the context of a full timed section or a full exam. If that's the disconnect, what you may need is simply more at bats: doing the questions in more timed and stressful conditions where the stakes are higher. Let's say we gave you a grab bag of 30 assumption questions, half necessary, half sufficient. Can you separate them, and are you able to apply the proper approach under time pressure? If it sounds good in theory, the work is in the application. Do some timed drills to ratchet up difficulty and make sure you're still holding true to what you're saying now. That may be all you need to get clear on this.
Steve: Abigail nailed one of the biggest barriers to breaking into the 160s: mixing up necessary and sufficient assumption questions. This is super common, even for students who feel like they get it during untimed work, but you've got to know the difference in real time, under pressure. Necessary assumption questions are about what must be true for the argument to work, sufficient assumption questions are more like puzzle pieces that guarantee the conclusion. Abigail understood this in theory, what she needed was more reps to make that knowledge automatic: timed drills mixing both question types, tagging them, sorting them, applying the right strategy for each. I told her this one improvement could easily be worth 5 points or more.
Now, when people get bogged down and the clock is ticking, sometimes it's because they get stressed and get tunnel vision, or everything looks blurry. Does that sound familiar?
Abigail: Yeah, if I don't understand the stimulus, I focus too much time on it, and then it's a spiral of not knowing what I'm doing instead of figuring out what I'm supposed to be doing. It's a little anxiety thing.
Steve: That happens for so many students. One solution is what we just talked about: if we can systematically identify all the areas where you tend to get stuck, and drill those prior to test day. If you drill necessary versus sufficient assumption for a month, every week or twice a week doing a set of 30 questions of that type, do you think your understanding would be clearer a month from now?
Abigail: I feel like that would help. I just worry it's not necessarily the timing, it's more something foundational, because I do get it, but then when I go to do it, everything I remember is just gone. I feel like the drill will help, but I don't know if it will help with the actual application if I'm still a little confused.
Steve: The key is figuring out what about it you could still be confused on. We talked about how to tell the difference, and you sound good on that. We talked about what each question type is asking for, and you correctly identified the difference. One thing we didn't get into is the different types of necessary assumption questions and different types of sufficient assumption questions, whether there are gaps in your foundation there. Maybe you're good on 2 out of 4 subtypes for each, but if you're missing half of them you could get bogged down when that type comes up. So in addition to the drills, you may need to go deeper into reviewing the foundational material. We've got lessons on each of those types inside the program, and you can also cover them in the live semi-private sessions.
Abigail: Okay, that makes sense.
Steve: If there are certain patterns in where you get bogged down, and we can shore up the gaps in your foundation over the next month or two, your final month or two prior to the test will be smooth sailing, just taking practice tests and working on endurance.
Then the last thing, aside from gaps in understanding, is sometimes people get bogged down just because of stress. The solution is recognizing when you're getting bogged down and making the tough decision: cut time here, skip it, flag it, move on, come back later, because everything's worth the same.
Abigail: That's definitely something I need to keep in mind, because when I'm doing drill sets or practice tests, if I don't understand a question, instead of going back I'll just focus on answering it and continue. I haven't utilized the flag and come back method yet.
Steve: Try it. It's there for a reason. Since every question is worth the same, there's no reason to risk getting bogged down on one question at the expense of an easier question later. You want to lock down all the points you can as quickly as possible. Are there any other areas where you're prone to getting bogged down?
Abigail: I haven't gotten to this part of the course yet, but I think I need to work on must be true statements. There's sometimes a little confusion in the vocabulary, or exactly what I'm looking for.
Steve: Okay, that's another big area. The 3 biggest types in logical reasoning are necessary assumption, inference, and flaw. Inference includes must be true and most strongly supported. The good news is you're mentioning some of the most common question types. If you only had trouble with evaluate the argument or parallel, that wouldn't be great, because those are rare types and gaining there won't gain you many points. But if you gain points in a common type that shows up more often, you get more bang for your buck.
Abigail described something I see all the time: she gets stuck on one question, spends way too long on it, and suddenly she's scrambling to finish the section. It's tunnel vision, you forget every question is worth the same. The fix: flag it, skip it, move on. If it's not clicking after 90 seconds, mark it, keep your momentum, come back later. On test day it's not about perfection, it's about capturing as many points as you can, grabbing the easy wins and not letting one question sabotage 5 others later.
You mentioned reading comp, and when you brought up comparative passages, I was like, a lot of people don't like those, but are you crystal clear on the long passages, since there are 3 times as many of those?
Abigail: My biggest issue with the long passages is going back and rereading a few times, because I need it, and I spend too much time reading, and then I get to the questions and don't utilize the most effective method of answering. I'll read it, have no clue what's going on, read it again, go to the question, and by the time I get to the next question I have to go back again. I feel like I'm getting there but don't have the most effective methods yet.
Steve: What does your default approach look like going in?
Abigail: I'll read the question first so I know what I'm looking for, then go through the passage and highlight the most important parts. I found the first question was mostly main point, and those were pretty straightforward. But when I get to a part where they highlight a specific phrase or sentence, I have to go back and reread a good portion for context, because I've been so focused on the main point that I don't really read the passage for the other sections they're testing. I have tunnel vision on what I'm supposed to do first, and then by the time I get to another question I have to reread, and that eats away at the time.
Steve: So on your initial read, what you're reading is enough to knock out the main idea questions, but then you find yourself having to go back a lot, and that's really time consuming?
Abigail: Yeah, it is, because when I go through it again I feel like I just need to not read the entire passage, but get more context on what I'm focusing on. I tend to have the bad habit of not giving something attention if they're not asking about it, and then I have to go back and understand it again. That's where I'm getting tripped up, I understand what I should be doing, but putting it into practicality is where I'm getting stopped.
Steve: It could be that you've got to get more efficient at going back more quickly, because you can't hold all 450 words in your head at the same time, and you don't need to, the passage is there and available to you. You're right to walk away from the passage focused on the main idea, that could help you knock out roughly a third of the questions: main idea, primary purpose, passage organization, best title, tone, author's opinion. You can knock those out on your initial read. The going back is where it gets time consuming, so there are 2 things you can do. One, get faster at the main idea questions to give yourself more time for the detail questions. Two, get faster at the going back process. The key is not to memorize everything with a photographic memory, but to find what you need quickly when you need it. Can you establish a quick mental map of the passage, where you know the details on this topic are toward the end of paragraph 1, or the details on this other topic are in the middle of paragraph 2, so you know generally, within say 5 lines, where to go back to find what you need?
Abigail's reading comp issue is something a lot of students face. She reads the passage, rereads it, then has to go back a third time just to answer the questions. It's not that she doesn't understand the ideas, it's that she's not building a mental map of the passage. On the LSAT, you don't have to remember every detail, you just have to know where to find it when you need it. On your first read, get the main idea and structure down, note what paragraph serves what purpose. When a question asks about a particular phrase or detail, you think, where in the passage did they talk about that? If you can mentally tag each paragraph with something like author's opinion, background, or example, you'll cut your rereading time in half. That alone could be worth 3 to 4 more questions on reading comp.
Big picture: focus on logical reasoning first, because it's 2/3 of the test. Work on not getting bogged down, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, then must be true. Those should get you at least 5 to 10 more points. Then maybe another 5 from a more refined reading comp approach. That alone could get you the 15 points you need to reach the low 160s minimum. And you've got 4 months, so even spending a month on logical reasoning and another on reading comp, you'd still have 2 additional months for endurance, pacing, and any new weak areas that come up.
Abigail: Yeah, that would be great. I feel like those are the big things I'm trying to focus on right now. Sometimes it's hard to see the big picture, I'm trying to keep in mind it'll come with time and I just have to keep going.
Steve: You're still early in the process. You've already got a great handle on some major weak points, and those are high yield, because they're common types, there are more points you can gain there. Combine that with having 4 months to get this increase, which is a pretty reasonable one. High 140s to low 160s is honestly one of the easier increases you can get, it's a lot easier to go from 147 to 162 than from 167 to 182, since 180 is the max. The gains come easily right now because there's still foundational work to be done. I have no doubt you can get there if you apply what we talked about today.
Abigail: Okay, and I have the full intention to, I'll get there.
Steve: Awesome, fantastic.
Abigail: I do have a few questions about reviewing. I've been hearing a lot in the videos about needing a solid review method, and I didn't know how important it was until we started talking about it in classes. Right now I've just been going through the questions I get wrong and trying to figure out what part confused me. What would you suggest to make that more effective, and to actually understand what I'm doing wrong?
Steve: I'll send you some lesson links, but big picture, document your review process. Keep a log, a Google doc, a physical journal, or a spreadsheet, with a section for every question you get wrong or have difficulty with. Was your mistake from misunderstanding something in the stimulus, misunderstanding the question type from the stem, or misunderstanding something about the answer choices? If it was the stimulus, what threw you off, something in how it was structured or worded? If the question type, were you not clear which type you were looking at? If the choices, what made you pick the wrong one, was something tempting about it, and on reflection what ultimately makes it wrong? And for the right answer, what made it seem unappealing at first, and what ultimately makes it correct? Because there are traps of encouragement toward the wrong answer.
Abigail: They do get me.
Steve: Yeah, they do. You've got to figure out which tricks and traps you're personally prone to falling for, then you can avoid making the same mistake again.
Abigail: Do they keep the traps consistent, are there commonalities?
Steve: Oh, definitely. One thing they love to do is make the first half of a choice sound really good, but there's one little word in the second half that makes it wrong, and people don't read all the way to catch it. As you document more, you'll see more of the tricks and traps, and figure out which ones you've been fooled by enough times to learn the lesson and not repeat the mistake. The idea is you make the mistakes now, in practice, so you can learn from them and not make the same mistake on test day.
Abigail: Okay.
Steve: That's something we'll go over often in the semi-private classes, and if you're ever interested down the line, you could also cover that in one-on-one coaching.
Abigail: Okay, that makes sense, thank you.
Steve: Of course. Abigail, before we wrap up, what would you say is the biggest insight you got from our call today?
Abigail: There's been a lot. Definitely creating a better structure for the traps and the things I don't understand, and understanding that they're foundational and there are areas to improve, and that doing more drill sets and focusing on timing and endurance can help me get where I want to be. It's one thing to watch the videos and another to actually apply it in repetition, so I think taking that advice will be really helpful, especially for necessary versus sufficient assumption, where I can get a big point difference.
Steve: Fantastic. Keep at it, it was a pleasure. If you need anything, just reach out.
Abigail: Thank you, it was nice meeting you on a call, finally on video.
Steve: I'll talk to you soon.
Abigail: Of course, bye.
Steve: Abigail had been going back to her wrong answers trying to figure out where she went wrong, which is good, but it wasn't getting her the clarity she needed. The key to LSAT review isn't just asking what did I miss, you've got to ask why did the wrong answer feel right, why did the right answer feel off, what trap did I fall into, and how can I spot it faster next time. I told Abigail to start logging these patterns, it doesn't have to be fancy, a spreadsheet or Google doc is enough. Over time, you'll start to see what your LSAT traps are, not someone else's, yours, and once you know them, you'll stop falling for them.
Toward the end of our call, Abigail said something a lot of students feel: "Sometimes it's hard to see the big picture." When you're in the middle of your LSAT prep, doing drills, watching lesson videos, and reviewing questions, it's easy to feel like you're treading water. But what we did in this call is exactly how you zoom out. We broke down her biggest pain points, built a plan to tackle them in phases, and clarified what wins look like at each stage. For Abigail, that meant starting with logical reasoning, fixing necessary assumption questions, mastering inference questions, and getting faster at identifying traps, then pivoting to reading comp with a focus on mapping passage structure and improving her ability to retrieve information. That alone could be a 15 point improvement, mapped out in just one call.
More coaching sessions: Zabdi, 141 to 155, Leah, 153 to 170, Dominic, Alina, 157 to 170, Logan, 172 to 175. Student results and reviews.
I've written free explanations for every question in LSAT PrepTest 159, 158, 157, 156, 155 and 154, with the right answer and why each wrong answer fails. All LSAT explanations are here.
Enough reading. Try a question. Free LSAT drills, 1 at a time, explained the second you answer. Start free drills
