Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

Admissions · Taking the December LSAT as a test run at the risk of decreasing my LSAT "average"

9702

Thursday, Nov 10 2016

Thank you guys! I'll withdraw from December. Should have posted this a day earlier to get that $50 back ha.

Admissions · Taking the December LSAT as a test run at the risk of decreasing my LSAT "average"

9702

Wednesday, Nov 09 2016

@476.rizeq thanks! I will check out those mock LSATs. I should say though that I'm already registered and the deadline for the $50 refund was yesterday, so either way I've already paid for the December test. If my hopeful schools won't look at my lower score, am I then safe to take it next month as a test run?

Admissions

•

Wednesday, Nov 09 2016

9702

Taking the December LSAT as a test run at the risk of decreasing my LSAT "average"

Hey all. First time poster here!

I am scheduled to take the December LSAT, but since I registered two months ago, I've decided to shoot for a higher score/better school and take it again in June 2017. I'm currently scoring a 160, BR-ing around 168, and my new goal is 170+. I think I can do this by June, but definitely not by December.

My worry is this: if I score a 160 in December and a 170 in June, will law schools heavily consider the first score and/or average the two? I'm looking at schools like Georgetown, Michigan, Chicago, Northwestern, and I want them to see my best score. On the other hand, experiencing test-day anxiety and getting a feel for the process this December before I do the real deal in June sounds beneficial.

Any Sage advice?

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q14

9702

Thursday, Sep 22 2016

I got tripped up on this too, but I think the referential phrasing in the answer choice refers to things as chronologically mentioned within the answer choice (rather than within the passage). So you could read the answer choice a "Concludes that one thing (better job) is caused by the other (owning a laptop) although the evidence given is consistent with the FIRST thing (job) having caused the SECOND (laptop)."

PrepTests ·

PT111.S1.Q23

9702

Saturday, Aug 27 2016

Thank you! Your explanation of A is really helpful, and I can see more clearly why it's a way better answer than B.

PrepTests ·

PT111.S1.Q23

9702

Friday, Aug 26 2016

I think there are two things that really trip me up in this problem:

1) As many times as I try to reread it, answer A seems to be saying the opposite of what I thought the correct answer should say. I read it as "unjustifiably presumes that the best way to increase correctness does not hinder survival." But if the author believes that increasing correctness will lead to an impaired ability to survive, and answer A says increasing correctness does not affect survival, how is this answer correct? I know I'm misreading it somehow, perhaps misinterpreting a single word, so any corrections in my thinking would be helpful.

2) Second, I chose answer B because it seemed reasonable to me. JY explains it's wrong because the stimulus requires that no believes change unless you reject previously held beliefs. I might be taking leaps here, but doesn't rejecting a belief inherently require you to accept a new belief? For example, JY thought he was a good cook, but when he killed his friend with poisoned food, he realized his previously held belief was not true. JY must now accept this new belief: "I am not a good cook." (or, at the very least, "I may or may not be a good cook.") If JY does this, he is still following the statisticians' rule, leading me to see B as a reasonable answer.