Yes, but it's not that noticeable of a difference as it's accounted for already when they convert the raw score into the weighted score. So if you got the same score, you can reasonably assume that your average performance is that score.

The LSAT also includes a score band with your score, which is a range +/-4 points of your official score. So if your score fluctuates a little, it is not solely a reflection your abilities but also an assessment of whether your performance was at your best/average/lowest.

I think it's recommended to gauge where you are by using your average score, while keeping in mind that your current potential is your highest score.

I think as long as you show how you've overcome / learned to manage your mental health and how overcoming those struggles makes you a good candidate for law school, it should be okay :-)

@nycxchi I think it's because "imperfect" literally means "not perfect." So it would be one thing if we conflated "imperfect" with "flawed" or "bad," but because the prefix "im-" means "not," the opposite word is the same as the negated word.

IMpossible → not possible or /possible

IMmortal → not moral or /moral

IMpolite → not polite or /polite.

Hope this helps!

@devientmelody It is different from the current one!

Let's say in 2026, our current vender is UniDine Services. And until last year in 2025, we have been using Hall Dining Services.

They survey was conducted in 2026, asking the students if they would like a different food vendor from the current one, UniDine Services. Those students said yes.

We know that the only alternative vendor we can use is our old vendor, Hall Dining Services. The spokesperson took that to mean that if the students don't like UniDine Services, then they must prefer Hall Dining Services.

But the spokesperson is assuming a lot here. What if the students didn't know that the only alternative option was Hall Dining Services? What if Hall Dining Services had far worse quality food than UniDine Services, and the students don't like UniDine Services? These assumptions are pointed out in (A), the spokesperson is assuming that the students were aware of the only two options that they had.

I don't think we had to conflate "different" with "new" in this statement, and I don't think the LSAT would ask us to do so unless it was explicitly stated in the stimulus!

@YosefWolff I think you may be misunderstanding (A). They're saying that brain scans for mental activity is of "doubtful value" in comparison to x-rays, which as you correctly point out, are "straightforward and indubitable." The argument is not saying that x-rays are of doubtful value, but rather using it to show that it IS valuable in comparison to brain scans for mental activity.

@StellaO'Brien I think it's not shifting meaning, because "criticizing" could also mean evaluating! It sounds weird in this context, but "to critique" or "to criticize" could also mean to evaluate (i.e. literary critic).

I fell for the trap!!

Conclusion: Drabble will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of arts commission.

Premises:

• Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible

• Lee wanted the job for a long time

• Drabble is politically indebted to Lee from previous election.

(E) Negated:

• It is NOT the case that the only way Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

• In other words, Drabble can adequately repay her political debt in some other way that appointing him head of arts commission. Maybe he also wants to be head of public works. This will not allow us to draw the conclusion that Drabble will almost certainly appoint Lee to be arts commissioner.

(A) Negated:

• Drabble HAS political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to lee and could as suitably be repaid by appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.

• Let's say Drabble has an additional political debt to Green. Green also really wants to be the new head of arts commission, and she'e been indebted to Green LONGER than Lee. Because Drabble ALWAYS repays her political debts as soon as possible, she has a larger obligation to Green. If (A) were true, then Drabble would NOT almost certainly appoint Lee.

(E) is worded so clearly and (A) is so wordy, which is why (E) was so tempting! I think (E) could possibly be a sufficient assumption? But unfortunately is not necessary.

Immoral actions harm others, but they also eventually harm those who perform them.

• Alec cheated on his wife. His wife is harmed, but Alec will eventually be harmed by his own actions.

The conclusion is that people who act immorally are probably unaware of consequences of their actions, rather than being just a bad person.

• In the divorce, Alec lost his reputation, his house, his assets, his family. When Alec cheated on his wife, he probably didn't think that he was going to lose everything. He may have known that his wife would get hurt, but he did not have the foresight of getting himself hurt.

The assumption is that if a person IS aware of the consequences, regardless of whether they are good or bad, then that person would not commit immoral actions.

• If Alec knew that he was going to lose everything in the divorce, he might have thought twice about cheating on his wife.

But what if Alec knew that cheating on his wife would harm himself? What if he was a self-destructive masochist who wanted to take down his wife with him? That's why we need (D).

Those who, in acting immorally, eventually harm themselves do not intend that harm.

In order for our conclusion to follow, Alec can't have known that he would lose everything in the divorce. Because if he did know, why would he do something so terrible that would harm himself (unless he is a self-destructive masochist)?

Therefore, he cannot have intended causing that harm to himself.

(Sorry Alecs of the world, I just picked a random name)

@MichaelWright Love your explanations, thank you!!

@Daisy228 It would be X ←s→ /Y, or some X is not Y!

Written explanations! I have ADHD, so I happen to absorb written content a little better. I find that the written explanations + reading through the comments helped me for the most part! I'm also someone who prefers trying to figure out a question by myself and work backwards from the correct answer. It's also nice to quickly glance at why each answer choice is incorrect.

@JohnLanza The conclusion is that we can reliably determine the age by counting the number of sections in its rattle.

With (A), let's say that rattlesnakes DO molt exactly once a year. So all rattlesnakes with 4 sections are 4 human years old. But we are never explicitly given a premise that informs us that this is true -- we are only told that the folktale claims one thing and the author jumps to a conclusion based off of conjecture. But what if there was a reason -- besides being brittle -- that would prevent us from reliably determining age?

(E) is correct for the reason that you gave, that you wouldn't be able to tell its age if the food itself was a variable. What if rattlesnakes never molt when they are hungry? This would lead us to conclude that a very hungry old rattlesnake is actually a young rattlesnake.

It wouldn't matter if 'often' changes from 3 months to 2 months because it's comparing the frequency of molting between when food is scarce and when food is plentiful. All (E) is saying is that whether they are hungry is not a factor that needs to be considered when using the sections to determine the age.

Hope this helps!

@megan309 I got this wrong but I figured out why it's not incorrectly negating the sufficient-necessary relationship:

(A) states:

if /autonomous → /maximally realistic

Whereas the stimulus states:

if autonomous → more realistic

The reason why (A) applies is because more realistic =/= maximally realistic. We just know that autonomous divisions generally have more realistic planning, but we are never told that if autonomous → maximally realistic. (A) actually only gives us if maximally realistic → autonomous which doesn't commit any sufficient-necessary confusion flaws.

liberal arts → improve intellect

if /financial gain → /hired

---------------

liberal arts → /hired

Missing link:

improve intellect → /financial gain (E)

@OlgaKaraoglu This is how I diagrammed it:

skilled ⎻m→ creative

creative → abstract

skilled ←s→ /famous

---------------

abstract ←s→ famous

Chain:

skilled ⎻m→ creative → abstract (Formal Logic Rule #5, Most Before All)

• Can be rewritten as: skilled ⎻m→ abstract

Sufficient assumption answers will always guarantee our conclusion to follow. So we need something that will allow us to conclude abstract ←s→ famous.

Formal Logic Rule #6, Two Split Mosts:

• P1: A ⎻m→ B

• P2: A ⎻m→ C

• C: B ←s→ C

So, if:

• P1: skilled ⎻m→ abstract

• P2: ?

• C: abstract ←s→ famous

P2 must be: skilled ⎻m→ famous (E). This was a good question to review diagramming quantifiers!

@Kevin_Lin That makes much more sense, thank you!

@Daisy228 The LSAT wants us to treat "few" as "most... not". So in other words, most workers in Plant B did NOT consume nutritious breakfasts during the month of the study. So Plant B becomes a sort of control group for us, because the majority of the workers did not consume nutritious breakfast. "Some" definitely leaves room for a flaw in the experiment, but that's why "few" is an important distinction!

@ak2 I eliminated (A) because it was comparing nightmare-prone children and non-nightmare-prone children. This was not mentioned in the stimulus. Our conclusion is that psychologists should identify nightmare-prone children, not that psychologists should learn why some children are nightmare-prone. So even if psychologists can identify nightmare-prone children by learning why some children are nightmare-prone, it doesn't address why we should identify them in the first place.

@lsattsal Because it's a strengthening question, we can make these connections. We don't need to guarantee the fact that there is a causal relationship between the correlation. But by showing that once they stopped eating the fruits, their symptoms improved, we can strengthen the researcher's reasoning. So yes, it could just be a coincidence that the symptoms abated, but it's one additional consideration for further testing down the road.

@k13lawwwwww The ad states that you should go to the clinic "after any accident that involves a fall or a bump on the head." The ad implies that every time you have such an accident, you will receive whiplash. But not every fall or bump on the head will lead to whiplash, which is why (D) is correct.

I also have small ears, I just bought a generic CVS brand and it works quite well (ultra soft, 32 decibels), but they also make earplugs for babies/kids that may fit better for you!

@gray You can compare the two and see which one makes more sense:

If it's humid, then it is difficult to grow cacti.

If it's difficult to grow cacti, then it must be humid.

What if it's also difficult to grow cacti in freezing temperature? Or wet tropical climate? There could be hundreds of reasons why it is difficult to grow cacti, which is why it cannot guarantee that it must be humid. Whereas if it's humid, we can guarantee that then we don't have the proper conditions for cacti growth.

Also look at the contrapositive:

if it is not difficult to grow cacti, then it must be dry (/humid).

This also makes sense, dryness as a climate is necessary for the cacti's growth, but it is not sufficient. A dry climate will NOT guarantee the growth of cacti, maybe we need the right soil, the right temperature, the right environment. Whereas if it is relatively easy to grow cacti, then at the very least we know that it must be dry.

@SMRegalado We know that trees have no corresponding right. But what if there were other entities that did have such rights? Maybe endangered species? Or maybe it's a historical site, or a gravesite. Just because we have no obligation to the tree itself, it doesn't mean that it precludes all obligations to all entities.

As an example:

There is an obligation to respect property lines between my house and a neighbor's house. But there can be no obligation to a neighbor unless that neighbor is friendly. So if I have an obligation to that neighbor, then that neighbor has to be friendly. But my neighbor is a sour old man who is very unfriendly to my family. Then I have no obligation to respect property lines.

But I would have to assume that there isn't any other reason for me to respect property lines. Maybe I have an obligation to follow laws against trespassing, or a moral obligation to respect my neighbor regardless of their disrespect.

@BaseerJoya1 I think UV-B doesn't need to be the only one that damages genes. Maybe there is another reason that UV-B is causing declining amphibian populations, or maybe there is another type of UV that causes gene damage. Arguing that it is the only one doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one, and I may be overthinking it.

The conclusion is that there is some sort of relationship between the number of existing words for colors and the ability to perceive different colors in a given language. They justify this conclusion by comparing non-English languages to the English language. In my mind I'm assuming this to mean that English could have 20 words that mean red whereas Korean could have 2 words that mean red, and that this somehow indicates the respective people's ability to perceive the color red (i.e. Korean speakers are perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as English speakers).

I couldn't quite figure out what 'sensory quality' meant in (B), but I'm assuming that it could mean a different shade/hue for a particular color? So (B) essentially just allows us to enumerate the distinguishable perceptions by counting the number of words for a color. It's a bit too broad and nonspecific for me to comfortably pick this answer under timed, but I can see how it's the best out of the other answers.

I think (D) is wrong because it's trying to conflate 'basic' with 'short, frequently used' words? I also think that the importance of categorization refers to the 'discriminated kinship system,' which evokes intentional cultural delineation of addressing family. Whereas for colors, it is not that they are intentionally defining certain hues, but that they are inherently deficient in perception.

I think (E) is wrong for a similar reason, that the reason that (back to my previous example) Korean speakers only have two words for the color red is not because there just aren't that many shades of red in Korea, but because they lack the ability to perceive as many shades of red as English speakers.

It's an older exam, so I understand that things can be a bit outdated. That being said, what an awful argument!