Leah, 153 and working toward 170: a live LSAT coaching session

This is what LSAT Unplugged coaching looks like. Leah came in at 153 (highest practice score 155), aiming for 170 on the September LSAT. Steve Schwartz coached him live for about 25 minutes on both, and the whole session and transcript are below.

The numbers here are where Leah started and the goal we set together in this session. Individual results vary.

• Student: Leah
• Score when recorded: 153 (highest practice score 155)
• Goal: 170
• Target test: September
• Situation: Also applying for next fall so open to pushing the test date back, putting in about 20 to 25 hours of prep per week over roughly 10 weeks
• Focus: both
• Worked on: sufficient assumption, must be true, resolve the paradox, reading comprehension main idea/primary purpose

Jump to the full transcript

What we fixed in this session

The LSAT isn't trying to trick you into picking the wrong answer, it's trying to see whether you understand how arguments work.

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 corrected her fear that going back to the passage wastes time, and taught her to only avoid going back on global questions like main idea and primary purpose while going back for detail and inference questions, noting where the evidence is on the first read.

Clarified her recurring confusion between sufficient and necessary conditions, explaining sufficient is enough and necessary is required, and that a sufficient assumption can be a broader principle that guarantees the stimulus's specific example.

The plan: I told her to stop timing mixed drill sets like 20 sufficient assumption questions since their difficulty varies too much, and to only time full sections using the first 10 questions in 10 minutes benchmark.

Where the session landed: Leah said the biggest insight was learning that going back to the passage isn't a detrimental thing, and that it would calm her nerves about reading comp.

If your prep looks like Leah's did, that's fixable in one session.

Book your free LSAT tutoring lesson

In Leah's words

I always confuse sufficiency and necessity.

Leah

Some questions aren't like that at all, and then some are so obviously right that I'm like, this is too easy, and I second guess.

Leah

That's also something I didn't do at the other tutoring website, I never really reviewed what I was doing.

Leah

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 Leah's case: her fear that going back to the passage wastes time.

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: sufficient assumption questions, must be true questions, paradox questions.

Student reviews and finished results.

Full session transcript

Recorded July 2025.

Steve: If you refine your reading comp approach more, get better at distinguishing sufficient versus necessary conditions, not reversing them, and get more clear on your mapping of the stimulus, you're going to get those score increases on the way to 170. This is Leah, and she's looking to go from the low 150s to a 170 and beyond in the next 2 and 1/2 months. My name is Steve Schwartz, and I've been teaching the LSAT for the past 20 years. Today, Leah is going to bring me her biggest LSAT challenges, and I'll help her address them as she looks to improve by 15, 20 points.

Where are you currently scoring right now?

Leah: Like 153, I think. My highest has been a 155.

Steve: And what's your ultimate goal score?

Leah: Really just however high I can get, but a 170 would be awesome.

Steve: Okay, so ideally 170 plus. How long do we have until you test?

Leah: I'm taking it in September.

Steve: So we've got at this point about 10 weeks, or 2 and a half months.

Leah: Yeah. But I'm also applying for next fall, so I could take it later if I have to keep studying.

Steve: Okay, so you're open to pushing it back. How many hours per week are you able to put into your prep between now and September?

Leah: I'm putting in right now like 20 to 25 hours.

Steve: Okay, that's a pretty good amount of time, maybe 3 to 4 hours a day. What would you say are your biggest challenges or weak areas right now?

Leah: Sufficient assumption questions and must be true questions are really tough. Reading comp in general is just really hard, I've always had a rough time with reading, I've been in reading classes and stuff like that. I think it's mostly just knowing what to do, but the study plan has helped me a lot.

Steve: With the personalized study plan, you mentioned reading comp along with sufficient assumption and must be true. I'd say reading comp is going to be the highest leverage because it's a whole third of the test. What's your current approach to reading comp?

Leah: Right now I'm trying to read the stimulus and put it into my own words, every sentence, and that's been helping, but I struggle a lot with putting it into my own words. I also never finish the last passage, I always run out of time.

Steve: So when you say putting it in your own words, you mean paraphrasing the passage sentence by sentence?

Leah: Or if it's an easier passage, I do it by paragraph.

Steve: Are you doing that under timed conditions as well?

Leah: I try not to, but if I don't, I usually just get confused about what it's saying.

Steve: I will sometimes recommend rewriting or paraphrasing the entire passage in simpler language as an exercise, but that can be challenging under timed conditions because of the time constraint, so I'd recommend saving that for your untimed review. During practice tests or timed sections, reserve that only for the central or main idea. If there's one key sentence where the author expresses their opinion, you want that down and be airtight on the meaning of that part. For the details and supporting examples, you may not need all of that.

Leah: So for the actual test, under timed conditions, just mainly focus on the main stuff, not every sentence?

Steve: Exactly. If you want to leave the passage with one thing, you'd want that to be the main point, the central purpose of the passage. When the author expresses anything global in nature, big picture, slow down and absorb that thoroughly. But anything supportive in nature, lists of examples and evidence, speed up there. Note where it appears so you can go back and find it when you need to, but you don't need it on your initial read, and holding onto it could risk you getting bogged down.

Leah: So going back to the passage isn't a bad thing? I read that you should read it and not have to go back and search, because that takes time, so you'd spend more time on the passage than the questions.

Steve: Good question, the answer is whatever works for you. You have 10 weeks, you can experiment with that, but personally I'd find it difficult to read 450 words on a difficult, unfamiliar topic and not go back to it for anything. Ideally you don't want to have to go back for general, big picture questions like main idea, primary purpose, author's opinion, tone, those orientation type questions you knock out without going back. But for the detailed or more inferential questions that require reading between the lines, you go back for those.

Leah: Okay, that makes sense.

Steve: The key to make that process quick is to note where the evidence appears so you know exactly which part of the passage to go back to.

Leah: So if it makes a claim, you just want to know where the evidence is, you don't have to know what it is yet until you get to the questions, and then you can go back?

Steve: Yeah, because there are too many details on unfamiliar topics, and rather than trying to hold all of that in your head simultaneously, when the LSAT is deliberately designed to push past the limits of your typical working memory, just note where the evidence is and go directly to that part of the passage when you need it. You can jot down a couple of key words after you read the passage that crystallize the main idea and the author's opinion, so you can go into the global questions with that in mind. A lot of people go into reading comp thinking they need to remember every example, every name, every transition word, and that's what keeps them stuck. The shift is from trying to memorize to trying to map.

What's your note-taking or highlighting approach like, if you have one?

Leah: I usually just highlight transition words, like however or therefore, so when I go back I know where it was in the passage. And if someone says something, like so-and-so says this, I highlight that person. Mostly just things that will tell me where to go when I go back.

Steve: And how's that working for you?

Leah: I think it helps me, because I can't remember 450 words in the passage without going back, so it helps me go back without taking as much time, since I know exactly where it is. It also helps me focus, because I'm actively highlighting instead of just reading and throwing it away.

Steve: I'm glad that's working, play with it, you don't need to be fixed on that exact method if it's not serving you. People are definitely important to highlight, because they're the advocates of different positions or viewpoints. Transitional words like however or therefore may not be as impactful, however signals a change in direction and therefore signals a conclusion, but LSAT reading comp goes beyond keyword indicator words. You may find that limiting or distracting. The LSAT doesn't reward you for catching transition words, it rewards you for tracking arguments, knowing who said what and how their views compare. Rather than marking every contrast word, focus on the structure: names, key positions, and turning points in the argument.

Let's shift gears and talk about logical reasoning. You mentioned sufficient assumption and must be true.

Leah: Yes, it's mostly conditionals, but my last one-on-one tutoring, we went over those more in depth, which was helpful. I've been drilling sufficient assumption questions, I think it's getting better. I think my biggest mistake in the past with studying is I never learned what the question types were actually asking. Something that really helped me with resolve the paradox was knowing that both facts from the stimulus have to be in the answer choice, that was really helpful. There are just little things in each question type that have helped me.

Steve: So you feel like you're on the right track, and your one-on-one sessions are getting you more clear on what the question types are asking for. What's your understanding at the moment of what sufficient assumption is asking for?

Leah: I think it's just asking for that missing premise to get to the conclusion.

Steve: That's fair to say, it's a missing premise that will guarantee the conclusion if it's true. When you combine the missing premise with the evidence, the two together are sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, making the argument work.

Leah: I always confuse sufficiency and necessity.

Steve: Sufficiency is enough, necessity is required. Sufficient is to the left of the arrow, necessary is to the right, in terms of conditions. When it comes to assumptions, a sufficient assumption, if true, is enough to guarantee the argument, it could be more than what's required, like having $100 is enough to buy a $1 item. You don't need $100 to buy a $1 item, but if you did, that would be more than enough. In contrast, if you wanted to buy a $1 item, having a penny is necessary but would not be enough. This comes up at least once a day in one of my coaching sessions, someone confuses sufficient with necessary and everything unravels from there. If you're trying to prove a conclusion beyond any doubt, sufficient assumptions are what you're after, they guarantee the conclusion if true, even if stronger than what's required. If you're looking for a necessary assumption, that means you want what the argument needs in order to work, and you choose the choice that locks it in airtight.

Leah: That makes sense, it's just when you get to things you can't logically think about that way, like if I don't know what the topic is, I can't logically think about it like that, then it gets tough, you have to use the mapping and stuff.

Steve: Our job is to logically think about it, but when it comes to sufficient assumption questions, you can in some cases diagram them. If you see a stimulus that contains multiple conditional statements, it's possible that if you diagram it, the correct answer, in the form of a new conditional statement, when combined with the existing evidence conditional, could form a longer chain that guarantees the conclusion. It almost becomes like a math problem. It's not always the answer, but sometimes that's the path forward. In other cases, the correct answer is simply a broader version of the argument itself. If we had, for example, Leah got a 180, therefore she's going to get into Harvard Law, a broader version would be: anyone who gets a 180 will get into Harvard Law. That would certainly guarantee the particular example of Leah.

Leah: But is that correct? I guess it just doesn't work the other way around.

Steve: We're not going the other way. The stimulus is the example of the particular individual, and we're looking to guarantee that example. If we learn, as new information in the form of a sufficient assumption, a broader principle like anyone who gets a 180 will get into Harvard Law, that principle would guarantee any particular example, the examples fall within the umbrella. Might seem weird because it's so simple, but that's the case for a lot of these.

Leah: So that would be one of the answer choices, the broader principle?

Steve: Yes, that's why being really clear on the question type is so important, because then the right answer won't seem weird even if it seems too easy or too obvious.

Leah: They can and do all the time, because smart people overthink things and get them wrong when they shouldn't. Some questions aren't like that at all, and then some are so obviously right that I'm like, this is too easy, and I second guess. Sometimes it's correct.

Steve: Our goal is to get you to the point where everything seems that easy, but you don't second guess, it becomes automatic. The LSAT isn't trying to trick you into picking the wrong answer, it's trying to see whether you understand how arguments work. Sometimes the correct answer will feel surprisingly simple, especially on sufficient assumption questions where the right choice often just restates or broadens the existing argument. If you're constantly second-guessing yourself because the answer seems too easy, that's a sign you're on the verge of getting really good.

You also mentioned must be true, is that also a case where conditionals are the issue, or is it something else?

Leah: I think it's all just the diagramming, because if I don't diagram I always accidentally switch them, but if I diagram it, it's fine. I struggle with the diagramming on really complicated ones, but I've worked on them more recently and I think I'm getting more comfortable, but still a little confusing sometimes.

Steve: Diagramming is a tool, and it's okay to use it as much as you want right now since you have 10 weeks till your test. Over time, I'd look to reduce the cases in which you diagram, you'll do more and more of it in your head, and reserve diagramming only for the more complicated cases that push beyond what's reasonable to do in your head.

Leah: Sometimes it's just intuition and I can find the right answer, but with really complicated ones I get all jumbled.

Steve: Over time we're going to raise your capacity for what's intuitive, so more and more will be automatic, and only the most difficult ones will you resort to diagramming. If you want to diagram a handful, maybe 3 or 4 questions in a section, I have no issue with that, I just don't want you diagramming everything, because there are too many cases where it becomes counterproductive or takes up too much time. Sufficient assumption and must be true are two of the only types where diagramming is okay to use sometimes. Right now, at 10 weeks out, it's a great tool to slow down and see the logical structure of an argument, but your end goal should be to reduce reliance on it over time, so you can do most of it in your head and save diagramming for the super complex arguments.

Leah: Would you recommend timing myself even when I'm drilling? Timing is something I struggle with a lot, it stresses me out even just having it there, it makes me anxious and I read really quickly and skip through things. Should I keep timing myself when practicing, or practice until I get the stuff down and then time it?

Steve: Timing is important, but it only makes sense to time in certain contexts. Doing timed full sections is definitely a good thing to do. As a general benchmark for anyone aiming for 170 plus, I'd aim to do the first 10 questions of logical reasoning in roughly 10 minutes, because we know those are the easier ones. But I wouldn't time a drill set of say 20 must be true or 20 sufficient assumption questions, because those are a jumbled grab bag, the difficulty varies, and we can't say how long that set should take.

Leah: Because it's harder as it goes on?

Steve: Exactly. The first-10-in-10-minutes pacing drill works because we know the first 10 are the easiest, so averaging a minute per question is fine, and you're building a time bank to apply to the tougher questions later. Master the skill first, then apply it under pressure. Cramming timing into everything just creates anxiety without giving you useful feedback.

Leah: Would you recommend I do a higher number of prep tests? There aren't that many, and I've been doing a lot of drills, so I feel like I've been getting rid of a lot of prep tests. Should I keep some untouched?

Steve: I'd recommend saving a handful of the most recent ones to do as full length exams in the lead up to test day. If you have 10 weeks till your exam, you might save the exams in the 150s, or a mix of the 140s and 150s if necessary, so you're doing one a week over the next 10 weeks. The 140s and 150s are the newest, anything prior to that you could do as individual sections or drill sets.

Leah: I'm worried I'll run out of tests.

Steve: There are almost 60 of them as full exams, so make sure you maintain 10 or 12 or so untouched, to use to measure yourself.

Leah: How do I figure out how to fix what I keep doing over and over again? If I get a question wrong I go through it saying what answer I picked and why it was wrong, why I thought it was correct, the Socratic method you guys showed. But how do I figure out how to fix the pattern?

Steve: You have your coaching sessions every week, talk about those questions with your coach, they can help you better articulate and extract the takeaway from your analysis. I'd be looking at where you went wrong, which trick or trap you fell for: was it a misread of the stimulus, misinterpreting the question type, a trap in terms of an attractive wrong answer or an unappealing right answer? Whatever the mistake was, articulate it clearly so next time you're primed to avoid making the same mistake again.

Leah: That's also something I didn't do at the other tutoring website, I never really reviewed what I was doing.

Steve: Review is key. The answer to stopping repeat mistakes is deceptively simple, you need to go beyond what you got wrong and figure out why: was it a misread of the stimulus, a question type confusion, a trap answer you always fall for? The Socratic review method is designed to surface those exact patterns. Take what you learned and talk it out with a coach, a peer, or even out loud to yourself. The faster you can label the pattern, the faster you can fix it.

So let's recap your game plan. For reading comp, crystallize the main idea, be super clear on what the author's opinion and main point are, and jot that down in a few key words on scratch paper. Feel free to go back to the passage when you need to for the evidence and detail oriented questions, that saves time because you're not getting bogged down on your initial read trying to hold everything in your head. Then sufficient assumption and must be true: diagramming is okay, it's a tool you can use in certain cases, those are two of the only types where it's a reasonable approach, and especially now with 10 weeks left, it's fine to diagram. Over time, as the test gets closer, diagram less and less, maybe reserve it for 3 or 4 questions.

If you refine your reading comp approach, get better at distinguishing sufficient versus necessary conditions without reversing them, and get more clear on your mapping of the stimulus, you're going to get those score increases on the way to 170. It was a pleasure. Before we sign off, what would you say is the biggest insight you got from our call today?

Leah: Being able to go back to the passage, that it's not a detrimental thing, was helpful to hear. That'll calm my nerves a lot.

More coaching sessions: Zabdi, 141 to 155, Abigail, 147 to 160, 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