My Aug’21 results came back (3rd test this calendar year) and I was blown away by how badly I fucked up. I mean I was averaging 169+ and repeatedly hitting 170-171 the last five or so tests before the actual exam and my score came out to be 162, which is one point higher than my first test. My highest score is 165 which was on the June exam, and I’m signed up to take it a fourth time in October. I’m just unsure if it’s worth it at this point. Based on my PTs, I’m definitely capable of hitting my goal of high 160s but it hasn’t happened during the past two tests (which I was actually confident about) and I initially wanted to apply by the end of September or early October so taking it in October will push back my applications to at least mid November. So I’m wondering if it’s worth taking it a fourth time and if I do and don’t perform better than my high of 165, will it negatively impact me my candidacy in any way? Just for a complete picture, my LSAC gpa is 4.02 from Berkeley Haas and my goal has been to get into a top 10 school, specifically in the East Coast. Please let me know if you have any advice!
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
What I like to do when I'm negating ACs such as A is insert the phrase "it is not true that..." before the AC. So if you do that to AC A in this problem, you're basically saying there could be plays that are popular several centuries from now that were not performed regularly during the intervening time. This pretty much wrecks the argument because the argument requires a bridge from "plays being played regularly over decades and centuries" to "being popular several centuries from now." By negating A, you're rendering that bridge useless by introducing the possibility of plays that are popular several centuries from now that were also not performed regularly.
#duxov :)
Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if there is a cheat sheat that details all of the different question stems in LR and how to approach them (i.e., weakening questions = attack the support, necessary assumption = take the contrapositive of the ACs and see which one wrecks the argument, etc. etc.). Please let me know if something like this exists. I haven't touched anything LSAT-related since the June exam and I'm looking to jump back in. Thanks!
I picked A but then realized it's just describing a David Lynch movie, not a musical from the 30's haha
When you negate AC A, does it turn into "some crows were among..." or "all the crows were among"?
Additionally, if you remove "always" from AC B, would the answer work?
#help
I totally feel you, this is my biggest frustration with the test so far
on the timed run, this seems like the hardest question lol
Is it just me or does it sometimes take more effort to read and understand some users' lawgic-heavy comments than to simply read / answer / review the question yourself? Not sure if I should be concerned lol
I am not convinced that E is an incorrect AC. I think it concedes to B since B does a better job of justifying the argument, but I don't really agree with JY's reasoning for eliminating it. "Some circumstances," stated in AC E is just as vague as "other interests," stated in AC B. Additionally, given the context of the stimulus, I would think if you tolerate a regulation, you implicitly support it. Does anyone agree / disagree? Would love to hear why if you disagree.
#help (Added by Admin)
How is it not C???
#help (Added by Admin)
I fell for D too - upon rereading the stimulus, I believe it's the incorrect choice because nowhere does the stimulus specify that limericks are a type of nonartistic poetry, whatever that means. All it says is that they have musical characteristics of language but we don't necessarily know which characteristics so I don't think we can even jump to the conclusion that it's considered poetry (even though our knowledge of the outside world tells us that it is). Super tough question though - hard to resist picking D especially on a time crunch.
Thanks everybody for your input! Seems like it’s worth taking it the fourth time to maximize my chances