@ said:

I got LR - LG - RC

LR: low sodium tomato soup, CO2 and maple trees decomposing, proposal passed if/iff approved by committee or boss, orcas sharks sea lions, fraudulent company, humidity and salt in a glass case, tires stored for two years, psychotherapy/confidentially, summer and lights being on

*Thoughts from anyone who had this section? I found it to be very very easy and even kindof fun when I got to the more difficult questions bc I actually had a second to think about them

LG: 6 somethings; Paintings & Sculptures from 18th, 19th, 20th, century; Buildings upper/lower level; & Archaeologists

*Thought this was extremely standard and leaning towards easy. My only draw back was taking too long on game 1 which I do sometimes.

RC: Big Bang, Franz Kafka, Evasion Policies, Diplomacy

*Found this to be a very fair section. This is probably the best I've felt about an RC section ever, in terms of understanding and having certainty in a timely manner. Did Diplomacy 3rd bc I thought it was sent from hell, but I actually thought it was interesting/enjoyable and the questions were not unreasonable. Doing Evasion last, I got really lucky bc I flipped through the questions before reading and found that there was a question for each paragraph in isolation, so I actually read a paragraph at a time and answered the corresponding question right then.

Hopefully the exam actually went well and I'm not just delusional but I never know .___.

I got this exam too. Feeling very ok about LR and RC. There was definitely a few tricky LR questions, but I found that the best answers popped out to me when I was reviewing the ones I had flagged. Overall it seemed like a really solid section and nothing crazy. RC seemed pretty straight forward too-- none of the passages had me bashing my head against the table and I wasn't finding myself struggling to eliminate answers which always feels good! I don't ever want to say any of it was "easy", but I made good time, answered every question, and was able to double check some of the ones that I flagged in each section.

I panicked on LG and I don't know what to expect there. I think if I had kept my head on straight I would have a good outlook for Feb 3rd but I feel very up in the air at this moment because of that. Regrettably, Game 1 was the only game that I finished in its entirety and I also spent far too long on it. I think test day anxiety got the best of me there and I find that making inferences under actual exam stress is significantly harder than in casual practice.

Personally, when I watch the clock tick away, I often abandon the "smart" method of solving games and start brute-forcing which is a horrible strategy. I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience and was watching myself fuck up but couldn't do anything about it.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I am going to be a bit of a Karen, spurred by posts I've seen across the internet.

Is anyone else rather concerned at the level of leaked information out there regarding these exams? This forum, reddit, elsewhere, are all getting into which passages are the most difficult, which games are the most difficult, and so on. Indeed, I've seen several posts now of people happy they took the exam later since they knew what to expect.

Most of the information isn't going to help one achieve a better score, though. For example, someone mentions a question about newspapers in LG. But it can be anything from ordering newspapers, whether certain newspapers are included or not, certain people writing in newspaper in a certain order, newspapers being shredded in no particular order, the order of articles within a newspaper, etc. (None of these which were actually on the LSAT). The "Newspaper" subject can theoretically produce any variant of LG problem we know of. On a similar vein, you can replace the subject of Newspapers with fruits and produce a structurally similar problem.

This is obviously not true. I wrote on Sat and have seen very helpful RC commentary that I would agree with and would give me an advantage going in. Also just knowing that the "4th newspaper game is unconventional" is at the very least a strategy & mindset advantage.

eh, honestly I disagree. Seems like lots of different versions of this test are floating around. I saw comments about the RC section I ended up getting the days leading up to my exam and if anything, it made me unnecessarily nervous when I realized what was in front of me. Lots of people said "passage x was dense and hard" but to me, it wasn't. Difficulty is subjective and people ultimately don't know what sections they are going to get. Me knowing that a logic game question about newspapers is "hard" isn't going to help me much when I probably won't even get that section, or if someone else's version of difficult is different than mine. It takes about 15 seconds of reading game rules to realize whether a game is unconventional or not. If anything, I think the surplus of info floating around is anxiety inducing for later test takers. I really don't think LSAC can do much better in protecting their precious Qs when we are all writing at home over the course of several days. They can't put a gag order on the internet.

@ said:

@ said:

that was my experience exactly. same rc and lg as you, same order but my lr was different

redo the games to see how easy they were. you'll be banging your head all night

I'm sure that would enrage me. I have no idea how to feel. Probably would have been a good write had my brain functioned the one time I actually needed it to.

Just finished. LR-LG-RC

LR felt suspiciously ok as I was making very good time. As always, hard to say if this was a good thing or not. I didnt have enough time to double check all answers but I got through about half of my flagged ones. The only Q I really remember is one about "low sodium" tomato soup.

LG is a write off. My brain stopped working entirely. I remember one about 18th, 19th, and 20th century paintings and sculpture, archaeologists and studying items, and one more about buildings on upper or lower levels. I got through game 1, then half way through the rest I became so concerned that I was spending too much time on one thing that I kept jumping around which was probably very dumb. Guessed on about 8 questions so thats great. Idk, I was too anxious to properly lay out boards and make inferences so that's a kiss of death for sure.

RC felt fine. Kafka, corporate evasion, big bang theory, and diplomacy. That section overall felt moderate to easy and I actually finished with enough time to spare to double check a couple answers.

Overall I don't really know what to expect. Fumbled games worse than usual but the rest seemed alright. Highest PT was 159, not sure if I did enough to hit that. Pray for me.

@ said:

@ said:

I ended up with LR-LG-RC-LR. First LR felt fine...but I fully didn't finish game #3 about the dog walking. I must have missed an inference/spent way too long on games 1 and 2 because none of the games seemed very difficult...it was just like I couldn't get my head in it so I guessed on probably 6 or 7 Qs which I am SO disappointed about. RC felt difficult, especially the one passage with 8 (???) questions, but at least I finished everything. The second LR was hard but I was also so checked out by the time I got there.

Did your RC include a passage about whales and pitch?

I don't recall a passage on whales...but I think I am blacking out this exam from my memory.

Feeling pretty bummed. This is my 4th LSAT and I did pretty well on my last try, but not good enough to get accepted off the waitlist so I was optimistic i'd be able to beat my score and get myself over the 165 threshold for this cycle.

I woke up yesterday after having a terrible sleep the night before despite trying to mitigate that by exercising hard early in the day and taking prescription sleeping pills before bed. I slept maybe 3 hours in the 10 hours I gave myself. I was just completely restless. I then woke up 2 hours before my exam with the beginnings of a cold so felt foggy and terrible.

I ended up with LR-LG-RC-LR. First LR felt fine...but I fully didn't finish game #3 about the dog walking. I must have missed an inference/spent way too long on games 1 and 2 because none of the games seemed very difficult...it was just like I couldn't get my head in it so I guessed on probably 6 or 7 Qs which I am SO disappointed about. RC felt difficult, especially the one passage with 8 (???) questions, but at least I finished everything. The second LR was hard but I was also so checked out by the time I got there.

My proctor disappeared during one of my breaks for over 15 minutes after my first section and I was in tears by the time someone came back because I was just typing "hello???" into the void and thought I got disconnected and couldn't finish my exam.

3/10 experience on this one. I am super bummed and feel like I did far worse than I should have.

this question tripped me up no good reason. I sat there between A and D and really decided to myself that "maybe the deers are eating the turtles stomach contents" was a good way to reconcile this question. Someone euthanize me.

#help

I am struggling a lot with NA and SA. It is my primary weakness in LR and I'm having trouble discerning what is what. I think things are starting to click more but I'd appreciate if some people could chime in as to whether my line of thinking is correct.

ex: If I am the best jockey in the world, then I am short in stature.

Best jockey in the world → being short in stature

Being short in stature is the necessary condition because it doesn't actually guarantee anything, it is just an indisputable fact that if one is the best jockey in the world, they are short. Being the best jockey in the world is the sufficient condition because it relies on the fact that to be such, I would need to be short in stature. The sufficient is fine and dandy all on its own but it does in fact imply the existence of the necessary condition? However, being short in stature doesn't imply that you are the best jockey in the world.

thanks in advance.