- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hi friends.
I was pretty surprised by my score yesterday. I scored somewhere between 3 and 5 points lower than I was expecting to score, very close to my first score despite beating the low 160s plateau in my recent practice tests.
I've been thinking through what could have possibly happened--I felt extremely good about LG, and I felt about normal with the rest, even with one slightly easier-than-normal LR section.
I remembered that when I logged onto the forums afterwards, I heard people talking about one real LR section with 26 questions. I didn't remember 26; I remembered 25. I figured I just misremembered. But I know I finished every section, and I'm wondering now if maybe that was an indication that I bubbled the last few ACs on the wrong lines. It almost perfectly explains the scoring discrepancy between what I expected and what I got. I was typically falling around -3 or -4 on each LR section and -6 on RC, with LG at -0 to -2 depending mostly on whether I finished. I finished LG on January's test, so a -14 or -13 seemed like a reasonable expectation. Misbubbling 22-26, for instance--which is around where I remember skipping a question--would get me from -13/-14 raw to around -18/-19 raw, which is exactly the difference between what I expected and what I got.
Is this something a handscorer would check for? Would they be willing/able to discern the difference and credit me the incorrect bubbles? Or am I screwed? Want to know before I spend the extra $100. Anyone have insight to share?
@joshvontrapp51 said:
I had two LG passages...one with apartments on three floors, bank branches (investment, loans, etc.), and computer installations and the other one was crazy: there was a game about a city giving 6 grants to three districts with parks, roads, etc. It was really tough. Was the apartments and bank one the real section? Also did anyone else find the second LR passage (with the porpoises) more difficult than the first?
I had this one too! And, yes, I found the second LR to be tougher than the first. The grants were mad hard but honestly before I got on this forum, I thought that section was real and it was just a miscellaneous game, much like the real estate game on PT 80 (I think).
Thank you for chiming in--I'd been very, very worried when I kept hearing that people were saying the first LR was harder than the second.
Were you LR-RC-LG-LR-LG?
@670039098qq338 said:
Does anyone know whether the LG section with the last one containing word like “originate” is real? I can’t remember the exact context and setting, only that one condition is “L can lead to at least two xx”?
That was the apartment game. That one was real
@670039098qq338 said:
Was the 25 question LR with skin acid real? Please say no lol.
I remember stomach acid of cows. I don't remember skin acid? But I understand the LR experimental was 26 Q. Unless there are different experimentals?
@floridabasketball13727 said:
Was the RC with Kapuchik and Placebos/Trademark and Copyright Law/Native American rock art experimental or real?
Real
I've tried to edit my name and can't seem to figure out how. Any tips?
Edit: Never mind that was stupidly easy.
@116379 said:
I had three LR and found my third section (LR) to be hard. I had LR RC LR LR LG.
One of the real LRs was significantly harder than the other. That was the one that ended with home invasion alarms I think. I had LR RC LG LR LG.
@alysonf1026631 said:
Did the real LG have one about walking dogs?
I don't remember that and I had both LG. I remember apartments, pillars, and east/west branch. Then there was one with mechanical engineers and interior designers.
I remember almost nothing about the first LG, which I think was experimental.
@buytrafficexpress251 said:
RC passages (i don’t remember the order)
Theatre and national identity (comparative passage)
Placebo research - Kaptnuk
Law passage- Trademark and copyright
I forget the fourth one!
Fourth one was Native American petroglyphs or whatever they're called. The crescent moon and the supernova.
@mmaritzagarcia303 said:
Had three LR sections. I specifically remember two questions: writer(?) Poe and two planets (comparing with Jupiter). Were those Qs in the experimental section?
I don't recognize either, and I had experimental LG.
It doesn't. It supposes Ruth asserted diverse experience (DE) is sufficient for being worthy of public trust, when in fact Ruth said it was necessary to have DE. So C is the right answer choice, because Ruth put forward a much more valid argument than the one that Stephanie attributes to her.
Seconded. Why is E wrong? Are we expected to understand that, because of the analogy, the two authors would generally agree about the intent and consequences of intellectual property laws?
#help
@mrmitchell95815 said:
I am now second guessing myself on the substitute equivalence question. I felt as if the substitute equivalence question was standard & not too difficult. I chose an answer that was pretty much an inference the game contained. I’ve seeing plenty of posts where people are saying it was difficult. I’m hoping I didn’t miss something. Anyone’s input would be great.
I have usually not found sub/equiv. questions to be difficult. Usually, it is an inference contained in the game.
But I've been wrong before. I feel a little more confident, though, because I feel like those q's are sold as being more difficult than they actually are.
@carinhanmd750 said:
I need to confirm that I’m not crazy, but did anyone think one of the LR questions on passwords and security looks like a similar question from a previous PT? I had 3 LRs so I don’t know if it’s experimental or not
I had that LG RC LR LR LG, and I had the password question. So it was real. But yes, they often use similar topics and similar stimuli. I swear a couple PTs I've seen identical stimuli with different Qs
Alright y'all. Freaked to find out that my decent LG section was real and my bomb LG section was experimental. Pray for ya boy
I agree with you. This seems to me to be a Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption Question, rather than a MSS. Which answer choice does the most to justify the conclusion? I picked A for that reason. But I think A is a bit too bold; it says that any manufactured good depends more on fashionableness than on cost of materials. That's not applicable because we're talking about one specific type of good that does depend on fashionableness. The fashionableness of other goods, like the wood used in building scaffolding around construction sites, is not really a consideration. By contrast, E is appropriately general without getting too bold, and says only that cultural trends can be important to determining price.
I think I misread answer choice A to mean "demand has a more significant impact on price than production cost," which is similar but not the same. So E is the best choice.
Yes, absolutely. It's like saying, "given a number x, where x = 3y + z, find that number." That number is x. When "this" is followed by a noun, it's a pronominal adjective with an assumed antecedent. Good question though.
That's just the thing. Of all the parts of that answer choice, there is no "larger pattern of behavior" that Lydia implicates. She does present an observed action, but there's no larger pattern. If there were, you'd see something like "Squirrels always seek sugar," or "Squirrels always poke holes looking for sugar." She doesn't; she just says, "Squirrels are after the sugar [in the sugar maple sap]."
I have to say, I'm put off by the LSAT test writers calling this an "argumentative strategy" and not a "rhetorical device." Obviously, we aren't being tested on our knowledge of rhetoric, but I feel like the way it is written is more a flourish of rhetoric than an argument which proceeds from premises to conclusion. Even though I got the right answer, I spent time confused about this question because I think it's a bad question.
Re-reading it, I think it's an irrelevant answer choice. It reads: "Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive."
So this has nothing to do with the narrower floorboards. Some floors were made of more expensive materials. Maybe marble or gold, like JY said. Maybe the other materials are status symbols, but they don't tell us why the floorboards are a status symbol.
Different books/courses recommend different things, but I say read the question stem first. You only need to identify key words/phrases and circle those keywords (supports, must be true/false, main point/conclusion, assumption on which it depends, etc.).
Many places say you'll wind up "re-reading the stem" but in reality you'll only remind yourself of the words you circled, and it's better to have an idea of what you're looking for first, I think.
@jwilkers110 said:
@vmorrone86131 said:
@vmorrone86131 said:
@jwilkers110 said:
LR was not too bad, but I was thrown off by an early question, I remember exactly it was #2 because I could not believe I was struggling with QUESTION 2!!!! It was related to medical residents, anyone else have thoughts on this one?
I had the same problem, and it really threw me. Was the your first LR section? It was for me I think.
Yeah, it was my first section. Overall gave me bad footing for the rest of the test. Hoping it was experimental as my other two LR sections were much easier
No, this was real, I only had two LR. Still can't wait to find the answer to this one, weird for question #2.
I also had trouble with the early LR questions when I started my second LR section (the harder of the two I had). I had less trouble with #2 and more with #1. That section was harder overall--more necessary assumption, more sufficient assumption, principle, and pseudo-sufficient than the other--so it made sense in the grand scheme.