Agree with the above - this is the exact type of scenario that the admissions curriculum talks about as meriting an addendum!

I would suggest adding a bit more context here - e.g. what types of schools are you shooting for? That would inform the retake decision. I'm sure you can get into plenty of schools with your statistics, but if you're hoping for the T14 or T6, that might change the calculus.

E.g. Looks like the highest odds in 7Sage Admissions Predictor (far from definitive of course as it doesn't factor in softs) are 28% (UCLA), which might not be palatable to you if you're set on the T14 and then you might want to retake.

Just my two cents as a future applicant (w/ no real expertise in this specific topic, but wanting to try to help how I can) -

I don't think it ruins your chances assuming you do get a much higher second (and potentially third) test as your PTs indicate you should (I assume your 175 and 171 were PTs, right?).

This seems like the rare "addendum" scenario if you are able to score as high as your PTs have been and you can perhaps provide color as to why the 158. Some schools do ask for addendums if you have a significant discrepancy anyway and if you do score 170+, this would certainly qualify.

One last thought if you're truly consistently about 170+ and willing to do it, perhaps the "safest" route if you're truly worried would be to consider taking a third time to cement that the first test was clearly a fluke. I personally think this is overkill though as long as you have a reasonable explanation for the first test.

Good question and definitely a real challenge with no easy answers, but I'll take a stab - I work full time as a senior manager at a big tech company that can often be 50-60hrs and am also an officer in the Army Reserve in a leadership role (variable extra hours, but definitely some extra hours per week).

I would say the consistency is a key foundation, but two other tips:

Getting in the right head space makes the time more value-add so that you're getting more bang for your buck (it's not just about raw hours count). E.g. For me, I studied in the evening primarily, but coming from intense/taxing days, I needed to usually go for a run or lift before even trying to start studying or else my brain would feel like mush.

Going 3-4hrs every single day probably isn't realistic - your job will require some long hours, you'll need to study for an upcoming test, etc., so be charitable there when you can't, but also on the flipside, hunt for extra time when the opportunity appears. E.g. If I had a quiet day at work, I'd do a few logic games during lunch. For you, maybe after a test when you can back off the studying for a moment, try to ramp up studying if you can, etc.

I'm confused why E isn't compelling here and JR's explanation doesn't really help - what if the predators referenced are only active at night, wouldn't that fully resolve the discrepancy? I know it involves making an assumption to fully resolve, but so does C (e.g. the relevant predator species do perceive color differently in such a way that the black & white pattern acts like camouflage). #help

I'm not an expert here, but I think the conventional wisdom is that it's not a major factor in admissions. The cynical / reductionist reason is that there's no extra weighting for strength of undergraduate institution for incoming class in the US News and World rankings of law schools so it doesn't "help" law schools with their ranking to admit folks from more prestigious undergrads.

I will say that in LSAC when you upload your transcripts to receive an official LSAC GPA (mine was higher than what my transcript says because LSAC does take into account A+ vs. an A, which is interesting) - you'll note that they do have statistics for your undergrad school in terms of what range of GPAs applicants usually have (LSAT as well). My hunch would be that they may take a glance to understand if your school has grade inflation or deflation. This is pretty much pure conjecture just based on the fact that it's included in the LSAC report though.

The last thing I think that they definitely do take into account around undergrad (again, not a huge weight, but something they'd consider) is the difficulty of the major - e.g. it's pretty widely known that hard sciences generally have deflated GPAs compared to say, humanities.

Thanks so much for the great feedback and input everyone - I went ahead and kept the score. Really appreciate the perspective and votes.

First, I'm not an expert, but I do think it depends what schools you're hoping for - if you do get a 168 or higher on the LSAT, that'll be a huge boost as it would make you a "splitter" for a good portion of schools even in the T50 and in isolation, the LSAT is the most important single aspect of your application -

I'm sure you've looked at 7sage admissions predictor, but it looks like you'd have a 25%+ chance at all schools outside the T14 if you get the 168 even with the 3.43. And just note how material even a few LSAT points is - e.g. if you go up to 172 you would have a 50% chance at a T14 (UCLA). Obviously take those %s with a grain of salt, but it gives you some great directional insight.

In short, I agree that the advice of taking classes to try to boost your GPA isn't the best investment of your time/energy - I would focus on crushing the LSAT as that'll have the biggest return by far.

And lastly, I think the addendum makes sense and could definitely help - especially since you showed improvement.

I was pretty sure about question 5 being B) initially, but then noted the use of the word "alleged" - doesn't that pretty clearly imply that the author is questioning sincerity of these film lovers? E.g. The word seems to have little function if not to imply that. He could've simply stated "It ill behooves us early film lovers..."

So, while I understand why B is right, I'm just struggling to figure out why A isn't - and almost feels even more precise in light of the use of the "alleged" word.

I suppose it's fair to say that it'd be a petty end to a passage like this for A) to be right (slamming the folks he's disagreeing with by questioning the sincerity of their conviction), so it could be just that B) is more believable, but JR dismisses it so thoroughly that I'm wondering if I'm missing something here. #help