- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hey, thanks for stopping by.
So here's the deal. I got through my first PT. As I took the PT I circled all of the answer choices which I was uncertain of (as is suggested by 7sage). For each section, I noticed that I circled about 2/3 of the questions -- leaving about 8 answers uncircled.
My score somewhat reflected what you might expect from a first time PT. I got a 148. I went back an did BR, typed in my new answers -- and the score hardly moved at all. It only went up to a 151. Here's the thing -- I found that in one section I got all of the answers wrong that I DIDN'T circle. Does this make sense? So basically the questions I was most certain of were the ones that I got wrong.
Has anyone else shared in a similar experience (especially of this magnitude)?
Thanks for any time
Thomas
I'll tell you why I didn't choose 'D': because I thought by "absurd" the LSAT writers implied "contradictory," which is what an absurdity is in traditional logic. To show an absurdity it to show a contradiction of terms, thus I chose 'B'. Also, P's argument appears to be more of an ad hominum insult than anything else, but after watching JY's explanation, I understand.
I found the answer very quickly by not using lawgic -- and by drawing the circles to show "complete subsumption." Perhaps some of you will find this easier than translating sentences in English into stupid syntax sentences that sometimes fall short of expressing actual ideas...
I'm going through a similar thing right now. Here's my issue: I took the PT, circled all the questions I suspected were wrong, and then after doing BR and grading --- I found out that the ones I was most certain about were actually the ones I got wrong. How the heck does that work?