Hello evereyone!

I just took the International LSAT and was wondering if anyone who has taken it wanted to sahre some info.

I took it Seoul on the 31st.

I had RC-LR-LG-LR-RC

I dont recall so well what passages were in the first RC but its compartive passages were about democracy and one of the passages had South Korea and Chile as example countries...

The other one had passages like...

dogs and human cues...(edited)

Native American Indian art and the artist Howe

a book about Notorious Woman( legal cases concerning a woman who found out her biological father rich and claimed her right for the inheritance)

compartive passages about monopoly and European Union competition law....

Nothing particular comes to my mind with regard to LRs...

For LG,

one of the games was about a concert with the piano and violin as one of instruments 6people had to play

The other one I remember is about accountants(?) who come to work to print or to verify....

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me which RC was the dummy...

Thanks!

Hi all,

I've just taken June LSAT in Seoul and had two LG sections. One of the sections had a game to decide full or routine inspection. The other game in this section was to decide something about pieces belong to Tv or Print or either... I dont remember any games from the other section. Can anyone shed light on whcih LG was the dummy?

Thanks in advance!

Hello friends,

I was stuck on this question for a long time, trying to figure out what is going on. In the end, I think I got my head around it. Can someone check my work please?

The conclusion : To protect public from erroneous info ---------> Medical Research Findings are public.

It seems like:

Conclusion : C ---> A

The answer choice (A) seems to say B ---> A, which is the missing link. Then everything chains up nicely.

C----->B (-----) A.

Am I stretching what the actual words are saying to fit them into the clean logical chain?

Please help me :(

Admin note: edited title

Freedom of speech is the only rational policy for this government to adopt.

Is this a biconditional sentence?

"But the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict."

from the 1st RC passage of PT37

Does this sentence mean, instances of hung juries do not necessarily mean that the unanimous verdict system has no benefit?

Are these two sentences mean the same thing?

Some people do not enjoy the movie.

Not all people enjoy the movie.

I wonder if "not all" and "some not" are interchangeable.

Thank you!