Zabdi, 141 and working toward 155: a live LSAT coaching session
This is what LSAT Unplugged coaching looks like. Zabdi came in at 141, most recently 145, aiming for 155 to 160 on the April LSAT. Steve Schwartz coached her live for about 24 minutes on Logical Reasoning, and the whole session and transcript are below.
The numbers here are where Zabdi started and the goal we set together in this session. Individual results vary.
- Student: Zabdi
- Score when recorded: 141, most recently 145
- Goal: 155 to 160
- Target test: April
- Situation: Working full time and raising a daughter while studying, about a month from her April test date, doing 8 to 10 hours of prep a week after starting tutoring in early February
- Focus: Logical Reasoning
- Worked on: necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, flaw, principle
What we fixed in this session
The benefit of playing the game is the postgame analysis, not just seeing what your score was.
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 found Zabdi's wrong answer journal grouped every question by question type in one cell instead of breaking each question into its own parts. I had her split each entry into stimulus, question stem, tempting wrong answer, why it was wrong, unappealing right answer, and why it was correct.
Many of Zabdi's misses fell later in the section. In plain terms, some of the difficulty was fatigue and question difficulty rather than pure skill gaps. I pointed her toward pacing, flagging, and endurance work alongside content review.
The plan: I had Zabdi commit to a specific increase in study time, from 8 to 10 hours a week up to about 20 to 30 hours a week, and to running at least one full timed practice exam a week with detailed review after each one.
Where the session landed: Zabdi agrees to restructure her wrong answer journal into separate columns per question, commits to roughly doubling or tripling her weekly study hours, and agrees to run at least one timed practice exam a week with review.
If your prep looks like Zabdi's did, that's fixable in one session.
Book your free LSAT tutoring lesson
In Zabdi's words
I think you're right, I think I just need to dissect my review more, because at first I was overwhelmed and thought the more questions I do, the better I'll get.
Zabdi
I have to really dissect each question I'm getting wrong, so I don't keep making the same mistake, because just doing the questions, I'm going to keep doing the wrong things.
Zabdi
Your mind plays tricks on you, you get overwhelmed, and that disconnects what you should be applying properly to the question.
Zabdi
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 Zabdi's case: Zabdi's wrong answer journal grouped every question by question type in one cell instead of breaking each question into its own parts.
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, flaw questions.
Student reviews and finished results.
Full session transcript
Recorded April 2025.
Steve: If you do that just in the next week or 2, I would think that 2 weeks from now, you'll be scoring 7 to 10 points higher. This is Zabdi, and she's looking to increase her LSAT score from a 141 to a 160 in the next 4 weeks. My name is Steve Schwartz, and I've been teaching the LSAT for the past 20 years. Today, Zabdi is going to share with me her biggest LSAT challenges, and I'm going to help her address them as she looks to get that 20 point increase in the next month.
Steve: Catch me up on your journey, where you're at, where are you currently scoring, and what are you hoping to score?
Zabdi: I took a diagnostic test when I first started the tutoring sessions. It was a 141, and then I recently took one, and it was a little better, a 145. I find myself second-guessing a lot. I narrow down between two questions and end up picking the wrong answer choice. I'm understanding the stimulus better than I did a month ago, but there's some disconnect when I look at the answer choices, down to two, and I choose the wrong one.
Zabdi: Relatively, I would like a 155 to 160. That will get me into the law school that I want.
Steve: Got it. And what's your time frame? When are you taking the test?
Zabdi: I'm scheduled for April.
Steve: Okay, so we've got about a month between now and then. We're looking to get you maybe 15 to 20 points in the next month. Tell me a little bit about how your process has changed since you joined the program.
Zabdi: It's helped a lot with understanding how to actually look at the stimulus and dissect it, what premises support the conclusion. Also making sure I'm studying most of the time, because I have a daughter and a job and all this stuff, so it gets a little difficult having that discipline. The tutoring has helped with that, and anything I doubt myself on, the tutor explains to me and I grasp it.
Steve: Good, I'm glad you're finding it helpful. What would you say is the biggest challenge you're facing right now as we get into this final month?
Zabdi: It's really the structure of the stimulus. Last session, me and my tutor reviewed necessary assumption versus sufficient assumption, so I've tried to identify those, because that's where I'm having the most difficulty. It's really about ignoring the background information and understanding the stimulus to match the correct answer choice.
Steve: Exactly. You've got to break down the stimulus. The choices only make sense in the context of the stimulus, so I'm glad you're recognizing that. I was really impressed with your wrong answer journal, where you break down each question you're getting wrong or having difficulty with. Would it help if we dived in there?
Zabdi: Yeah, that's fine.
Zabdi: Most of my takeaway is that I'm not interpreting the stimulus in the correct way.
Steve: Right. So you're categorizing them by question type: flaws, principles, necessary, resolve, disagree, agree, weaken, parallel, most supported, parallel role. That's excellent. It looks like you're putting all of your review for each question in the same cell of the sheet, right? So everything for PrepTest 150, section 2, question 4 is all within one block.
Zabdi: It's just the ones I've reviewed. They're not part of a whole practice test, because the study guide has certain ones from different PrepTests. Each cell is just a different question, but in that category.
Steve: Right. So what if you broke this down more, where for each question you had a separate column for stimulus, question stem, tempting wrong answer, unappealing right answer. Some of these are quite detailed, some are less detailed. I'm wondering if for every question you get wrong or have difficulty with, you break that single question into several different columns. What if your current headers, flaw, principle, necessary, resolve, etc., became just one column, and then each individual question had a section for tempting wrong answer, unappealing right answer? Every question would have maybe 5 or 6 different columns.
Steve: Every student should review their mistakes in depth for every practice test, every timed section, every drill. Every question you get wrong is an opportunity to learn something new. It's far too easy to look at the answer key, say "how could I have been so dumb," and move on, unless you're keeping a review log, an error log, a wrong answer journal, to track what you're getting wrong and extract the key insights. Far too many self-studying students, or those using an app, don't go into sufficient depth with their errors.
Steve: At LSAT Unplugged we use a framework called the Socratic review method, where we guide students to review better and learn better. You track every element of the question, whether your mistake came from the stimulus, the question stem, or the answer choices. Then we go over your tracker with you in your private coaching sessions to keep you on track. If your tracker isn't sufficiently in depth, your review won't be either. There's nothing worse than thinking you're studying properly, only to realize later you weren't getting full value from your study hours.
Steve: More than just explaining questions the way a book or video would, during coaching we go over your wrong answer journal with you to make sure it's structured the right way. Through our programs we give you the exact templates and tools to do it right. Even if you're not in one of our programs, you can take the insights I go over here with Zabdi and apply them to your own study process, to drill deep in the right areas. Most importantly, your analysis of your thought process during your initial attempt, and then upon reflection, what you could have done differently.
Steve: One of the biggest issues students face on the LSAT is not understanding the argument, what we call the stimulus in logical reasoning. It's incredibly important, because the choices only make sense in the context of the stimulus. I was happy to see that Zabdi recognizes the importance of slowing down to understand what the argument is saying, the conclusion, the evidence, the gap between the two. Once you understand these three pieces, you understand the method of reasoning, and you'll be in a much better position to evaluate the choices.
Steve: Hey, real quick guys, a lot of you have been asking how to get featured in one of these LSAT study breakdowns, and get feedback on your LSAT study plan. The only way is to join one of my LSAT coaching programs. Check out the links below to book a call with me and my team.
Steve: So what I'm envisioning is a column for the PrepTest, section, and question this came from, the stimulus, the question stem, then two columns for the wrong answer and two for the right answer. The wrong answer columns: why was this tempting, and why is it ultimately wrong. For the right answer: why was this initially unappealing, and why is it ultimately correct. You have these traps of encouragement towards the wrong answer and discouragement away from the right answer, and we want to make sure you're getting the takeaways on what traps you're falling for so you can avoid the same mistake again.
Zabdi: I think you're right. I think I just need to dissect my review more, because at first I was overwhelmed and thought the more questions I do, the better I'll get. But I have to really dissect each question I'm getting wrong, so I don't keep making the same mistake, because just doing the questions, I'm going to keep doing the wrong things. It's overwhelming, and then you get anxiety and try to manage all that.
Steve: Of course. You're certainly on the right track, doing a lot of the right things. It's possible that for a lot of these questions you already have the wrong and right answers down, but I want you to drill down every single time into exactly what was the heart of the issue with the question. Dividing up your review this way makes sure you don't leave any understanding or points on the table, which is especially crucial given this is your final month. Far too many students skimp on review because it can be addictive to take test after test, measure your results, and move on to the next.
Steve: There are dozens of official released LSAT practice tests. If you track your tests weekly, you get addicted to the feedback of seeing your results. But the true growth comes from analyzing your mistakes, figuring out which tricks and traps you're personally prone to falling for. The benefit of taking practice tests and drills is to give yourself more at bats so you can get more questions wrong, then do the postgame analysis, not just see what your score was.
Steve: It's better to take fewer practice tests and review them in more depth than to do a greater volume but only skim the surface on review. The point of taking the test is to give yourself chances to get questions wrong so you can review those mistakes in depth, and highlight the key takeaways so next time you'll know what to watch out for, which habits to adjust for your next at bat. Based on your performance next time, you can see whether the new methodology worked or whether you need to adjust again.
Steve: It's rare I find someone with time to do 3 or 4 practice tests a week and review them in depth. It's better for most students to do just 1 or 2 tests a week and allow more time to review in sufficient depth using a framework like the Socratic review method. How many hours are you devoting to your prep per week on average over the next 4 weeks?
Zabdi: I started a month ago with the tutor sessions at the beginning of February. I'd say I dedicate around 8 hours a week, 8 to 10, that's normally how much.
Steve: Do you have any more time you could put into this for this final sprint?
Zabdi: Yes, I really want to dedicate all my time this month so I can be more prepared than I feel now. I can definitely do that.
Steve: By how much? All your 8 to 10 hours a week versus all your time, there's a lot in the middle.
Zabdi: I can probably dedicate 4 hours a day.
Steve: In that case, we're probably looking at 20 to 30 hours a week. So we'd be doubling, maybe tripling, what you've been putting in.
Zabdi: I've been trying to wake up early, around 6:00 a.m., study, then sometimes 2 or 3 hours in the afternoon. I've been trying to get consistent, because I'd really like to get a good score for the first time, and I know I can do it. It's just a matter of putting in the dedication and dissecting what I'm doing wrong, but that's time-consuming.
Steve: The LSAT can be a time-consuming process, but the good news is you're testing in a month. If you go hard by putting in 20 to 30 hours a week, doubling or tripling what you've done up to now, that alone could get you at least half of the way to your goal of 155, 160 plus. On top of that, we deepen your review process, more deliberately, more in depth. Those two compound. Either alone could have an impact, but combined, more time devoted to better review, that leads to maximal returns. If you do that in the next week or 2, I'd think 2 weeks from now you'll be scoring 7 to 10 points higher, and with another 2 weeks on top of that, you're at your goal.
Zabdi: I think the first month of tutoring was just a lot of information I didn't even know about the LSAT, all the question types, and reading it a certain way, so it took more time to really understand it, and now it's putting it into practice.
Steve: Exactly, that's what often happens when you first join a program like ours. You don't know what you don't know, and especially in that low 140s range, there's still foundational work to be done, and that's okay. We build up your familiarity with the different sections and question types, the proper perspective to view each. Then it's a lot of drill work to deepen understanding, build pattern recognition, and after that, the review, the postgame analysis. That's what I want to help you do, go deeper on that for every section, every exam. How many sections or exams timed would you say you're doing per week?
Zabdi: I've only done one, so I haven't really done others timed.
Steve: Do you think you could start doing a minimum of one a week?
Zabdi: Yeah, I can do that.
Steve: Awesome, that'll help a lot with building pacing and endurance. That's one exam a week with the 8 to 10 hours you were doing before. Now that you're upping it, start slow, maybe one exam this week, but maybe 2 a week going forward, 2 and a half hours for one sitting, then later that day or the next, you review that exam. The more you take exams, the more you simulate test day conditions, the more familiar it is, the more you reduce anxiety. With 25 to 30 hours a week, you could fit in 2 exams plus detailed review, plus meeting with your coach, plus maybe some drills or individual sections on the side.
Steve: Zabdi's only been putting in 8 to 10 hours a week, maybe 2 hours a day, 5 days a week at most. But there's more time in your schedule if you're willing to carve it out. Even if you work 9 to 5, you've still got 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. You could carve out at least 3 to 4 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week. Layering in double or triple the time plus a more in-depth review process over the next month, I'm excited to see how much farther Zabdi can go during this final crunch time.
Steve: If you're looking for a quick LSAT refresher, or just getting started, check out my free LSAT cheat sheet linked below this video. It's got my best actionable insights to get you started, and it's 100% free.
Steve: As we look back at this review document, do you have any questions about what you've done here, or about transitioning to a new format?
Zabdi: No, I think the new format would be helpful. I can include those cells, and instead of putting the whole question in the box, split it into the stimulus, what it's about, the conclusion, the evidence, and the tempting and unappealing right answer.
Steve: Exactly. The stimulus, the question stem, what was tempting about the wrong answer, what was ultimately wrong with it, and for the right answer, what was unappealing about it, what ultimately makes it right.
Zabdi: And for the question, basically just copy the question type, or the whole question sum?
Steve: Just the question type is probably sufficient, so you can get a bird's eye view, more easily scan and see trends in what you're getting wrong. Looking at your sheet, not a whole lot in the agree, disagree category, not a whole lot in role, at least looking initially. If we look at flaws, there's probably going to be a lot.
Zabdi: No, actually, there's only two there.
Steve: Scanning across, there aren't too many questions here yet, so as you fill this out more, you'll be collecting more data. When I looked at your answer sheets for 152 and 151, I saw a lot of the ones you got wrong were later in the section, which could indicate they're harder, since it gets more difficult over time. So there might be foundational work to do, given where you're scoring, but you might also be getting harder questions wrong just because they're hard.
Zabdi: Yeah, your mind plays tricks on you, you get overwhelmed, and that disconnects what you should be applying properly to the question.
Steve: Exactly. Sometimes the stress of timed conditions, or the endurance of the full exam, can lead to a drop in performance. The antidote is doing more practice so it becomes familiar. You also look at your pacing and flagging strategy, skipping some, flagging them, coming back later, developing that muscle memory for when to flag, skip, or come back versus hammer away for another 30 seconds or a minute.
Steve: When you're not seeing trends in what you're getting wrong, focus on the more common types, because you'll get more of a lift from those, the higher yield areas. If you improve in flaw questions, that's a big boost, since they're prevalent, one of the most common types. Agree disagree, there aren't quite as many. Rarer ones, like evaluate the argument, there are hardly any, so don't devote time there until you've mastered the common ones.
Zabdi: Yeah, I found that flaw and necessary assumption are like the two main question types on there.
Steve: Yeah, two of the most common, with inference, meaning must be true, most supported, third most common in that group.
Steve: To recap: focus on the most common types, flaw, necessary, inference, for your biggest lift. Deepen your review process: make question type a separate column, and orient the sheet by stimulus, question stem, tempting wrong answer and why it's ultimately wrong, unappealing right answer and why it's ultimately correct. And devote more time since you can, up from 8 to 10 hours a week to maybe 20, 25, 30, plus more practice tests, minimum one a week, ideally two, with detailed review.
Steve: Since joining the program, Zabdi has already taken important steps to document her review process. Far too many students look at the answer key, say "how could I have been so dumb," and move on. The real work is understanding what mistakes you're making and why, so you avoid them next time. Zabdi is already detailed in analyzing her thought process, but I'm encouraging her to go deeper: the stimulus, the question stem, what was tempting about the wrong answer and why it's ultimately wrong, what made the right answer unappealing at first and why it's ultimately correct. When you're looking to improve 10, 15, 20 points or more, as Zabdi is, the breakthrough comes down to figuring out exactly which tricks and traps you're personally prone to falling for, so you can avoid making those mistakes again.
More coaching sessions: Abigail, 147 to 160, 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
