- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
100% My PT's actually rose when i focused lesson the score and more on how i was controlling nerves and how i thought during the test. i was really intentional with fixing anything that was going on mentally that could distract me or hinder me.
A tell sign that you are being affected by your brain is when you can get untimed questions right most of the time then it is like it all goes out the window test day. That is mostly anxiety but practice helps.
Hi Everyone,
I took the October LSAT this past week at an in person center and wanted to provide my feedback and advice for those who are new.
Note: I have taken a few LSATS in the past both in Logic games format and all remote.
the LSAT was not very different to what you would expect from PT's. You will see a lot of BS on reddit but to be honest they are not that different. So just focus and don't psych yourself out.
Test Center: My test center experience was pretty smooth, they provided noice cancel headphones which worked great. you can hear the door open and closes which does happen a decent amount but to be honest its easy to block out. The first 10 minutes of the test my nerves were very high because of the new environment but after that I was locked in. I would highly recommend that you take one practice test at a library or have someone you live with open and close your door every 10 minutes lol.
If you have to leave the room during a break, you are required to check back in which is a quick 2 minute screen. the people in the center are very organized and nice.
My big advice for test takers in general is practice your positive affirmations. For me the biggest difference between a PT and a real test is that I get instant feedback or know what is experimental ahead of time. During the real test it is normal for your brain to be like "I am not doing well" in fact it happened to me every single section. But I just kept reminding myself that this is normal I have felt like this almost every practice test and the result turns out fine. I also remind myself that it is a marathon and to focus in on the question at hand one at a time. I promise this will help you. don't just track how you do on PT's track how your mind is reacting to things and learn how to strengthen your mind. That will make a massive difference for test day.
I hope this helps some people. please reach out if you have questions. Hoping for a positive result later this month but remember. This test does not define you!
i initially picked A because of the idea that usually a new concept in the conclusion will be in the answer but E and B also sounded good to me.
Thanks for the feedback, I honestly was confused with myself as typing it. I guess what I meant was that a premise is already established making C kind of irrelevant to us.
scared me for a minute lol. I have been practicing with background sounds just incase like family talking in other room. I will come back after Saturday test and give feedback on my experience. 7 sage is superior from my experience on LSAT test prep and I have been doing this for a while.
Quick Question for people who have tested in person: Is the testing centers really that noisy? I would not be able to test if it was as bad as the politics one that is like constant conversation. I know the testing center provides headphones but still please tell me that stuff like that type of noise is rare.
See I thought because it said that the modern law had more exclusions than Betham would have liked that it was actually the opposite of B.
E could have been tempting for sure under timed conditions. the reason I got rid of it is because the argument tells us about the next day stats and concludes that sleep deprivation is likely responsible. with this knowledge why would the argument not let us know that the accidents were increased for several days. It just didn't feel like it strengthened enough as D did.
Like the correlation in the argument is sleep dev and accidents. D says that more accidents happen when people are drowsy or sleep deprived. so this gives me reason to think that sleep deprived was more likely the reason.
The conclusion is hat cameras dont increase safety. What answer could potentially weaken this or make it less likely. Maybe one that increases safety or one that shows us that safety without is worse.
D) side collisions is fewer with cameras than without and if they are a greater threat to safety then with cameras safety is increased.
POE:
A) ok so the playing field is level now. still how is it that this company had better sales.
B) Ok this company is possibly having more sales because people remember more when going to buy keep for now.
C) ok, cool now we know how many were auto, but still how does the glitch have to do with increased sales. sales sales sales.
D) ok so how many much was better sales than others? like still we dont know how this company had better sales even if the videos were not talking.
E) hmmm, so i guess there was just n discrepancy. like this dealership just got lucky? doesn't seem to explain.
Go back to B and uitfeels even stronger now.
People remember the commercial so this shows how even if the glitch was happening sales could possibly still be high. they remember the commercial so now when they go to buy they will at least in part potentially of bought because of that.
If confused by C and D...
C is a flaw we see in a lot of questions but the new LSAT loves to put those as the wrong answers so you have to pay attention to context.
The conclusion is not really a Must statement, it actually gives leeway for if the competitors argument was right, for that reason C is wrong. it doesn't actually say that not being proven is the reason it has to be false, it just uses that as some support.
Instead D is right because the argument does say that even if they were proven which we know they are not blah blah blah, the competitors do the same things they are criticizing and haven't fixed it. D says this essentially we should reject the argument because they haven't followed what they criticize
to be honest I got this right twice from POE.
I got down to B and D both times and at first i pick D but then I read it again and it just didn't feel right like with what the argument was saying. I didn't think the arg was saying the term would apply to things it does not
for B the counterintuitive part actually helped because the arg itself felt very much so that way to me and it also does use a hypothetical to explain why the definition doesn't work.
this might not be the best way to go about it but when i can't understand the answer choices I really nitpick what the structure is saying to me.
For those confused with C and E...
The conclusion talks about an effective strategy for 1. controlling theater and 2. satisfying public, which is to make the dramatists and performers honored gov employees.
A weakening answer will try to attack 1 or both of those 2 conditions.
The support we know is they criticize authorities who treat harsh, and that dramatists won't criticize gov when honored employees.
Note: the premises in these we have to always believe as true and not attack them. our goal is to make the conclusion less supported and less likely.
C) this is a prime example of attacking a premise. we already know that dramatists won't criticize gov if honored employee. so if C were true it would not matter if it was harsh or not, the conclusion would still follow. C is literally taking a premise and being like I will forget what you say this is what I say.
E) Remember what I said about this weakening one of the 2 points in the conclusion? well the public won't be satisfied with AC E, so seems to make the conclusion less likely.
I like this question because it is a great example of the traps on new version of LSAT.
The point at issue in the argument is that although people say they care most about reliability, some of the most reliable models do not sell well.
I guess why would it be the case that people care about reliability (which we also get the conditions for) and why do the reliable cars not sell well.
C) this is tempting!!! but wrong.think about when most people buy cars, after a few years when they might need a new one. These people could very well care about the most reliable car but won't get the most reliable car every year. This doesn't explain why the cars dont sell well. because every year there can be different people who need cars. people buy cars every day!
B) This helps explain the issue because the cars people are buying they think they are reliable but ultimately are not the most reliable at the time of purchase. So this could explain why the people care about reliability and the most reliable cars aren't selling well.
I feel like this could have been a little tricky for a 2 star question.
Really you need to spot the conclusion that the cave was probably over 200 years ago. the support we have so far is that mites no longer live in cave and they are now in a new cooler area.
The answer we can find that would support this argument and is supported itself would have to be dealing with climate.
A) This is really the only answer that makes sense because the it would help explain why they are still in a cool area and why the cave 2000 years ago was also probably cooler.
B) tempting but the argument says nothing about wet, you ant use this to support or you can't support this with the text.
C) ok, cool fact, the author is still trying to make an argument the cave was cooler. not necessarily about the time
D)If you got caught up on altitude i guess this is tempting, but the author states claim in the conclusion that the cave was probably cooler, we dont really know if the new area was high altitude or not.
E) tHonestly this was the most tempting for me, but there is one subtle thing that can help you eliminate. the argument takes about several species trapped in the cave. This doesn't mean other mites are there or not. so we really can't say that there are fewer mites or not because we are concerned about a subset of mites.
again if you spotted the conclusion this should of been easier to eliminate.
C was very tempting for me but once I got grounded back to what the conclusion was "the facts show otherwise" or the go official policies produced env damage, I was able to eliminate this.
I guess if this was a strengthener this might be one answer but it is not necessary that the same companies that bumped were the same ones that urged to repeal. urged or not, there definitely could have been companies unrelated that were dumping because of the policy.
E) this is necessary because the evidence for the conclusion is the mining stream and if there was still a policy and either the same or not less dumping occurred than how would the argument even support the conclusion.
I guess more support for A is that we know Einstein abandoned his theory which might not have happened if A is true.
I think an assumption that the argument makes that is flawed it that when the conclusion says the argument is misguided it is essentially saying it is flawed. and its support is that no evidence doesnt mean they dont exist.
the issue is that the biologist didnt say that the theory they dont accept is wrong if they said that then E probably wouldnt be the right answer. They say they dont want to accept it as true. The paleo assumes that the biologist is saying that no evidence means not true.
So E) this says that it could be resonable to not accept a theory on the grounds that no evidence is presented yet. ya, i could definatley say i dont want to accept x is right because i havent seen it to be right.
What tripped me up on this question is that the application said Mcfinton should be able to publish a response in Speculators digest to wallaces article. I interprited this as that Wallace had responded to Mcfinton already in Speculators digest. so I chose A.
But it does make sense now that I assumed that, my bad. I guess the application really just says he should be allowed to publish in x article to wallaces response. It isnt necisarily saying wallace responded in x article it is just telling us that Mcfinton can publish in x.
the conditional
if same article then allowed to respond to harsh critic
if critic publish in different article and unfair
A) Mcfinton publish in Speculators digest. ok we know he should be allowed to post there but he was not the critic so our conditional isnt triggered yet.
D) Both were in the same article triggers conditional 1 if statement . so we can justify that mcfinton should be allowed to publish.
This takes so much brain power lol. I honestly saw C thought it was good and moved on but if I looked at D i think I would have picked D.
THe explination that helped me is really just diagram the logic and if you dont know how learn it in the modules.
Some statements are not conditional so the arrow can go both ways.
C) this is wrong because the logic says caluable contributions then well run but that doesnt mean that well run then valuable contribution. by saying many that can mean some and if you say some you can do <--> arrow which would take what our contitional statment and make it possible to reverse instead of contrapose.
D) this really just follows the logic chain but its a puzzle to parse it tg.
I think the video explains this better than the written explanation.
THis is a tricky question again on 159 if you dont read carefully. But ultimately I got down to B and D and chose the wrong answer because I was looking for an answer saying that there could be risks that havent been considered.
B) i like the explination that the author does consider the risk of the sausage in terms of it not being pink but I dont like saying that it considers the risk of preventing spoilage. Rather it doesnt adress it appropriately as the video says. So for this reason B is just not descriptively accurate.
D) The argument concludes with the strong term Never be added. This implies that we for no reason should use it just based on a few premises of what it does and doesnt do. But the line before the conclusion about excessive consumption is the key because the argument kinda asumes that if there is a possibility of health problems then we should never use. But it doesnt consider what about the just using it moderately.
That is what D points out.
THink of Salt. If you use a lot of Salt it can 1 not taste great and can have health risks, but I wouldnt say you should never use it because in moderation my concern isnt really there.
tough Q: New pattern to take note of. usually in MP questions you can find the since, therfore, or another key indicator that a conclusion is happening. If it is harder usually you can find a line that is supported. Now it seems Like the hard main point questions will bait you by giving a lot of context and mush the conclusion in the same sentence as the premise. You have to read this carefully hen you get to the conclusion to note that it is a conclusion and a premise
a lot of people only post when something negative happens or if they are like genius and get a 179. but I think there is a lot of people who just take reddit with a grain of salt. I think once people start to evaluate more than just the score and start taking note of how their well being during a test and if they thought it was hard or easy. focused or distracted. Burned out or not, you start to notice a trend in when your scores are better or worse and also that the test isn't dramatically harder than others. yes there will be tests that play to your strength and others that dont but overall the reason most people think it is harder is because they are nervous and dont know how to react mentally to test day adrenaline.