I really liked AC: E since the reference to a "theory" in AC:D made me uneasy. The LSAT generally reserves "theory" for the scientific context. More importantly, though, the LSAT typically invokes "theory" when discussing phenomena and hypotheses, which is not what the stimulus is about.

This stimulus is a great candidate for a low-res diagram:

P1: In a study, families provided with a medical book visited the doctor less than those families who did not receive the book.

P2: When family health improves, families visit the doctor less.

C: This study proves that having a medical book improves family health.

SUPER LOW-RES:

P1: A --> C

P2: B --> C

C: A --> B

Immediately, you should recognize the faulty reasoning in the argument. A medical book could lead to fewer doctor visits, just as improved health has the potential to do. However, there is no reason to assume a causal link exists between the medical book and improved health because they lead to the same effect.

Two things:

In a podcast put out by the Deans of YLS and HLS, they discussed this very point. If a person worked various part-time jobs throughout college to support themselves, you should definitely include that. You may not need to detail EVERY job and their respective duties, especially if those duties aren't relevant to law school. They recommended an applicant just make note that they always worked some type of part-time job throughout college, because that would explain other parts of the applicant's application, such as a lack of extracurriculars or grade drops.

If the jobs you worked are an important part of your story, I would definitely write an essay about it. If not a personal statement, then a diversity statement. Or an addendum.

RE: Q19

This question is a great example of when PoE can be incredibly helpful because the correct answer appears to test your ability to make an inference based on the meaning of the word "typically".

"Typically" is closer to the meaning of "most of the time" than it is "sometimes". Regardless, this question tested your ability to infer that, "if you do X most of the time", you sometimes DO NOT do X. In other words, doing something most of the time does not preclude the possibility of NOT doing it sometimes. What a typical LSAT move.

RE: Q20

I initially chose AC: D, but then thought, "Wait, proponents of ToT do a similar thing with tangible objects. Namely, as is the case with the poem analogy, ToT would say that the individual who wrote the poem owns the work, not the individual who dictated it. Therefore, since the writer owns the poem, the presumption is that the writer also owns the ideas in the poem, which the author believes is exactly the issue with ToT".

But then I realized that proponents of ToT DO NOT consider the ideas behind a work, just the work itself. So they would not make this assumption. I also failed to apply this presumption to intangible objects, which better illustrate the author's point.

Hey! I was in the same boat as you. I have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and take medication to control it, but symptoms arise nevertheless! I find that while it is helpful to discuss how to mitigate anxiety, it is more important to PLAN for anxiety. After all, if we could turn it off/on at will, it wouldn't be a problem.

For all things mental health, I recommend talking to a professional. Even if the panic attack was an isolated incident, it still may be helpful to explore this with a doctor considering this is how your brain responded to stressful stimuli.

Lastly, regarding the LSAT, because I had a full-blown panic attack during my June exam, I requested "stop-start" breaks for the August Exam as a fail-safe. I didn't end up using my accommodation, though I felt significantly less stressed knowing that the safety net existed. You may consider the same.

Take control. You got this.

RE: Question 26

I chose AC: E on the timed run but immediately saw why it was incorrect on BR. The answer is descriptively inaccurate for 2 reasons:

First, CPG is a novelist and a social theorist, not a scientist. She did not contribute to a SCIENTIFIC theoretical discussion, she contributed to a SOCIAL theoretical discussion. CPG applied a SCIENTIFIC theory to SOCIAL circumstances. AC: E says that CPG details her version of "that" scientific theory, which is descriptively inaccurate.

Second, as others have pointed out, CPG also does not "clarify" the scientific theory of Darwinism. As stated above, her scholarship is limited to the social sphere, not the scientific one.

Hey! I live in DC. DM if you want to link up!

My proctor accidentally started my LR section without telling me while I was holding my laptop out in front of me to give them the 360-degree room-scan. I somehow realized that had happened and then frantically sat down to start the section. As I was testing, the proctor called me to tell me that she accidentally started the section (like, no sh*t) AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD DO ABOUT IT. THEN WHY DID YOU CALL?! 10/10: an absolutely awful experience. Wasted so much time. Definitely had an impact on my performance. I put in a formal test-day complaint and requested an investigation by LSAC. If they validate my complaint, I get a coupon waiving the fee for the next LSAT. Yay.

Most evolutionary biologists would assert that animals' physical characteristics exist as they do because those characteristics have helped the animal survive and reproduce, thereby passing on the genotype to their progeny. Some phenotypes are easy to explain, as is the case with the type of camouflage that enables a prey species to blend in with its surroundings.

But how do we explain things like zebras? They're striped black and white against a green and brown environment. This doesn't fit in with our traditional definition of camouflage. In fact, it almost appears to be anti-camo. How would an evolutionary biologist explain this? Why would this particular adaptation be beneficial for the survival of the zebra?

AC: A does not answer this question as it does not address why this seemingly bizarre adaptation exists. AC: A points to a vague characteristic that must be assumed to be an advantageous adaptation. Further, if A is more populous than B, wouldn't that statement hold true if species A consisted of 50 members and species B consisted of 51 members? At what point would the ratio of prey to predators be advantageous for the survival of the species? We have no idea. Plus, we still have not explained the stripes.

AC: B: So what? Prey does not need to protect itself from every predator ever. No species has evolved to the point of invincibility.

AC: C is definitely a curveball, so if you're used to eliminating weird AC's like this automatically, RIP. It is true that this AC does not explain why/how black and white stripes are an advantageous adaptation, but it does prompt us to realize that the assessment of the apparent efficacy of black and white coloration was based upon a faulty premise, namely that predators perceive colors and patterns in the same way as humans. Once we accept this, we discovered the foundation on which we can make the small assumption that predators are colorblind. As such, everything is black and white anyway - the zebra, e.g., need not be all the colors of its habitat to be camouflaged from its colorblind predators. This AC provides the basis for an evolutionary explanation: black and white coloration is uniquely designed to obscure prey species from a particular predator that is not able to perceive color.

AC: D is odd. So black and white coloration helps species who have them avoid each other? Why is avoiding your own species advantageous for survival? You have to make some wild assumptions for this to work.

AC: E is something of a trap. If I said "Bob is less of a murderer during the day", did I mean that Bob is NOT a murderer during the day? Nope. So too, if black and white coloration is less of a liability during the day, that means it is still a liability. From an evolutionary standpoint, traits that are a liability would dwindle and eventually cease to be passed on as it would impair the ability of those who have it to survive and procreate. So AC: E does not explain why the adaption exists, nor does it explain why it is advantageous.

Yes, context is paramount, as the previous poster indicated.

But here's my take. I think I'd hesitate to say that "tends to" = "most". In LR, I've often seen "tends" used to indicate a weak correlation between two variables. For example: "A tends to increase as B decreases". What this means is that "A does not always increase as B decreases". We can go further and say that there is not necessarily a causal connection between A and B.

Absent sufficient context/evidence, it is better to depend upon the weakest interpretation of a vague word than it is to assume it refers to the strongest interpretation. In closing, I'm more comfortable with "tends" meaning "not always".

@ said:

Confirming that on the August LSAT I got a 166, 91st percentile.

Curious what this means relative to previous years - is the curve getting harder to break? Do we anticipate this is the trend for future tests?

While LSAT scores have generally increased over time, the dramatic increase we've seen in high scores this past year is primarily attributable to the pandemic and the adoption of the LSAT FLEX. Because of the lockdowns, people apparently utilized their newfound, state-imposed free time to study.

Crucially though, the LSAT FLEX transformed an in-person, 5-section exam with ~100 scored questions into an at-home, 3-section exam with ~75 scored questions. Whereas LR comprised 50% of the pre-pandemic exam, it now only accounts for ~33% of the FLEX, which offers an advantage to those who are particularly weak on LR. For example, let's say Person A always misses 4 questions on every LR section, and never misses anything on RC or LG. If Person A took the previous exam and missed 8 questions across the two LR sections, 92 correct out of 100 obviously equals a raw score of 92%. By contrast, if the same person took the FLEX, they'd score 71/75, which equals a raw score of ~94.67%. Lastly, for those who suffer from test anxiety - which is often exacerbated by the environment of testing centers - taking an exam at home is indeed an advantage.

As a result of these factors, peopling scoring equal to or greater than 175 increased by >100%, effectively breaking the curve and depressing previous percentiles. This was a tremendous nightmare for many law schools as they were inundated with high-scoring applicants and somehow admitted many more students than there were available seats, consequently leading to a record number of deferrals being offered for the 2021 school year. Medians are now increasing to mind-bending highs prevent similar "catastrophes" for admissions offices. For example, Georgetown's new median is 171, and it's not even a T14 school. I am stressed.

@ said:

If the score percentile shifts downward relative to earlier versions of the Flex exam (not saying that it does, but just in the hypothetical), how does LSAC expect law schools to fairly assess students who took the Flex in June 2021 against students who took the non-Flex in August 2021? Presumably they'll be applying in the same cycle, but shouldn't their scores be considered with this context in mind?

This is an excellent question, especially since law schools are now releasing their new LSAT medians as determined by the accepted students matriculating into the 2021 school year. Spivey Consulting is tracking the updates here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oxg1daKToiMystD7rGrbpnHNO-JXdc2ugQMrR0YR7aQ/edit#gid=0

A podcast, also by Spivey Consulting, addresses your question at least in part. Their conjecture is that law schools will adhere to the standards set by the new medians until the well of unusually high scorers runs dry, at which point they'll consult the old medians for the remaining applicants, likely toward the middle of the admissions cycle. It's a fairly reasonable prediction.

RE: QUESTION 15

AC: E is kind of fascinating to me. Being able to explain why/how answers like this are incorrect is a valuable skill for tougher questions.

AC: E is attractive because it contains language that is strong and vague, especially when compared to the correct answer. If AC: B felt too specific to encapsulate the main point, the ambiguity of AC: E may have felt more appropriate. But upon a closer look, we see that AC: E has several flaws.

First: What "substantial evidence" do we have? We have anecdotal evidence from the author and some psychological research about JURORS, not ACCOMPLICE WITNESSES. So, this is factually inaccurate.

Second: How is one "heavily influenced"? In what way? To what degree? How often? How rarely? The vagueness of the phrase allows us to assume away our problems.

Third: What "incentives" are we talking about? It would be reasonable to assume that we're discussing a sentence reduction, but why make "incentives" plural? What else can the prosecution offer?

To conclude, the correct main point should not be so needlessly vague.

I think this question does not reward the people who go into Strengthening Q's looking for a weakness in the argument to improve. Immediately, you'll probably want to say something about the fact that a decline in speciation does not necessarily lead to a decline in the overall bird population.

It is possible that the 10 bird species eradicated by the snakes were omnivorous, eating a diet of both spiders and island fruits. So when the omnivorous birds disappeared, the population of the herbivorous birds increased since there was less competition for island fruit.

In this scenario, AC: D does work as a strengthening AC because it strengthens the conclusion's claim that it was THE LOSS OF THE SPECIATION that lead to an increase of spiders, not a decrease in the bird population. The argument is even better if the bird population INCREASED, while speciation DECREASED.

HOWEVER

None of what I described above was in the stimulus; it all has to be assumed. You could also simply look at AC: A and be like, "Sure, nothing wrong with assuming at least 1 species of birds competed with spiders for food, and their being gone results in less competition for spiders, no matter how minimal."

TLDR; Think less and use smaller assumptions. Give the correct answer as much grace as the answer that you have to write a book about to justify.

I disagree with JY's argument that you must read the first sentence as saying "the ONLY law" because you do not have to assume that the only law discussed in the stimulus is in fact the only law that exists in the city of Weston.

After the stimulus introduces the law, we learn that Brimley's mayoral campaign "complied with THIS law". Which law? The only law introduced in the stimulus. Does it matter if other laws exist? No. All we know is that the campaign COMPLIED with one law, and as such, the scope of our inferences is limited to only those that can be made with that law.

What does it mean that the campaign complied with the law? It means that the law was not violated. But what does that mean? Given that this is a MBT question, let's consider when A --> B is false on a truth table.

A --> B is false when A is true and B is false. So the campaign would violate the law if a campaign contribution in excess of $100 made by a nonresident of Weston who is not a former resident and the contribution was NOT registered with the city council.

But in order to violate the law, the sufficient condition of the law must be triggered. However, the stimulus stipulates that ONLY residents and former residents contributed to Brimley's campaign; this precludes nonresidents who are NOT former residents then. Therefore, the sufficient condition is never triggered. So if we represent the law as A --> B again, ~A can be true without violating the law.

By now we've proved 2 things:

It is false that A --> ~B because the law was not violated.

It is true that ~A because no nonresidents who are not former residents contributed.

Finally, let's return to the truth table for A --> B to see when A --> B is true when ~A is also true:

*A / B / A --> B

T / T / T

T / F / F

F / T / T

F / F / T *

Assuming ~A, A --> B is true both when B is true and when B is false. As it pertains to this question, it means that Brimley's campaign complied with the law both if they registered (despite never receiving contributions from the relevant set) as well as if they did not. This is the inference the question is asking you to make.

If you got this far, you need to choose between AC: C and AC: E. AC: E can be eliminated because it COULD BE TRUE, as it is the last row of the truth table. But it is NOT REQUIRED.

Because NOT A, it is simply the case that, whether B or NOT B, no contributions to the campaign WERE REQUIRED to be registered.

Also, my 171 is in the 97th percentile.

As a URM myself, your story is extremely similar to mine! Congrats! Here's to bringing greater representation to the legal profession.

Step 1: Channel your inner Socrates and proceed from the realization that you know nothing. The second you think you understand the LSAT, the LSAT wins; there is always more to learn.

Step 2: Set realistic goals. If you're consistently missing -5 on LR or RC, there is clear room for improvement. Start by aiming to go -4 consistently on each section by targeting what you commonly get wrong. Then aim for -3 consistently. Etc.

I know you say that there's not one question type that's tripping you up, but I find it hard to believe that you're missing an equal amount of all question types. If that were the case, I'd say you just aren't reading carefully enough. But assuming you are indeed plagued by a particular question type - which you can find on the Analytics page - strengthen your understanding by creating problem sets consisting solely of that type. Do them untimed and dissect the stimulus and AC's. Score them, review them, and then repeat with another weakness of yours. Over time, you will recognize patterns and your performance will improve. And - ALWAYS RECORD THE QUESTIONS YOU MISS - segueing into the next step:

Step 3: Keep a wrong answer journal, if you don't already. Since you're close to 170+, every question you miss is an invaluable teaching moment. In fact, everything you get wrong informs you precisely of what you need to invest your time in. So, keep those questions in your journal.

But don't just record them - pick the stimulus apart sentence by sentence as well as the AC's. Write a whole page about why the correct AC is correct if you need to. Compare the question you missed to other questions you've missed. Play with your understanding of the stimulus by creating your own version of it via parallel reasoning. Do whatever helps you. Bottom line, make sure you understand WHY/HOW you missed the question.

Step 4: Construct a plan of action. Now that you know WHY you missed the questions you did, what are you going to do about it? For each question I missed - after an extremely thorough analysis - I wrote a 1-sentence strategy for tackling questions of that type. After doing this for several weeks, I eventually compiled a document of strategies specifically tailored to my deficits. I found it to be a tremendously effective exercise.

Hey there!

The pre-pandemic LSAT, the regular exam we've come to know and love (or hate), had 5 sections, 4 of which were scored. Generally, you'd be answering 100-101 questions. If you get 25 wrong out of 100, your raw score is 75%.

The post-pandemic LSAT, the LSAT FLEX, has 3 scored sections, totaling 75-76 questions. The newer LSAT FLEX now has a 4th UNSCORED experimental section. If you get 25 wrong out of 75, your raw score is ~67%.

Hope this helps!

@ said:

Hello everyone!

I am a prospective applicant and plan on taking the LSAT next year. My goal is to score in the high 160s, low 170s as of now. If you worked and studied full time, I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to share how you stayed diligent with studying and working full time and achieving your score goals (especially if there are busier months in your field of work than others and how you managed working around that).

Thanks!

The first step is to set realistic goals. I can't say that I would recommend studying more than 20 hours a week, especially if your job is mentally taxing. The goal is to learn and improve, not burn out as soon as possible.

I studied in 4-hour blocks, 5 days a week. I tended to study M/W/F/Sat/Sun. On Tues/Thurs I would NOT study; I would relax and engage in my hobbies. Additionally, I went to the gym Tues/Thurs/Sat/Sun.

Each time you study, you need to have a clear objective. For example, on Sunday I would take a PT. On Monday, I would BR and do an in-depth review of all the questions I missed. On Wednesday, I worked on a problem set of the LR question types I missed as well as a timed LG section. On Friday, I would finish the LR problem set and then do both a timed RC section and a timed LG section. On Saturday, after reviewing all the sections I completed the day before, I again took timed RC and LG sections.

I found that it wasn't the case that I didn't have enough time so much as it was the case that I needed to prevent burnout by NOT studying as often as possible. (I can't stress enough how devastating burnout can be to your performance and motivation generally.)

Your needs and situation may likely be different than mine. I'm lucky to have a job that respects the work/personal life division, so when I leave the office, that's it - nothing follows me home. I was also very open with my boss about my LSAT preparation. As a result, he's been patient and understanding when it came to requests concerning PTO/my workload. I encourage you to communicate your needs to your employer as well.

@ said:

@ said:

Can you let me know what, if any, instructions are provided in their addendum sections?

It simply says "This section is optional. Other addenda can be attached here, if desired."

It seems like they're leaving the door open for you to attach your diversity statement as an "other" document. Diversity statements are commonplace in the admissions process, so I would be shocked if they were to become flabbergasted upon reviewing your app.

I've gotten into the habit of eliminating certain trap AC's that feature vague language baiting you to assume. It's pretty common to see the word "varies", "differs", or "affects" in a sentence without a proper point of reference informing us as to HOW something varies, differs, or is affected. So, when I saw AC: D, I saw "varies", and honestly didn't read further.

But in this case, it actually tells us how significant the variance is, i.e. "great". WHOOPS. The AC is also the weakest of the weak - super subtle - though lethal nonetheless. Goes to show that, on tougher questions, you really need to give yourself time to digest AC's like this.

@ said:

I just finished, but during my exam my proctor forgot to do the room scan after the break. So they made me do it during the exam, I lost about 4-5 minutes just because of the confusion of it all. So I had to rush through the entire section and would have had 5 minutes to spare which we all know is crucial.

Is there anything I can do about this? or is my exam just gonna suffer.

This happened to me last year. I submitted a test day complaint via LSAC. They canceled my score and gave me a coupon that waived all fees associated with the next available LSAT. You're certainly not the only person who has run into this.

It may be good practice in the beginning to fool-proof even the games you fully understood within a given time limit, though you may want to phase that out as you progress in your studying.

When I was towards the end of my prep, I fool-proofed any game that I did not get 100% on. I also fool-proofed any game that had a component unlike anything I previously encountered, regardless if I scored 100%.

As you progress, fool-proofing becomes less about the game itself and more about understanding how an entire game hinges on a particular interpretation of a single rule or an implicit assumption. Eventually, it will make more sense to focus your energy where it is most needed.