It looks you are asking about going to a Tier 3/4 school with a 149. Unless you had a 4.0 with undergraduate degree it is unlikely you will get into a quality law school with a 149. In fact, it is much more likely for you to get admitted to a predatory school. I would highly recommend you check out this link which is an article just published about the reality of crushing debt and not being able to pay it off: https://www.wsj.com/articles/law-school-student-debt-low-salaries-university-miami-11627991855

I would also recommend that check: https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/ and look at the job outcomes, debt and types of opportunities you may have with schools you might be interested in. Having a Masters Degree shows you have the capability but sadly matters very little in the admissions process.

I also work full time, as well as part time and am a single Mom. It took me a long time but I dramatically increased my LSAT score. It can be done and it is worth it.

When I read a passage I try to think through a few major questions the most important one being why did the author write this?

Why is the author taking my time to make me read this? What is that they want to know or to learn?

In fact I try not to move on from the passage to the questions until I can articulate to myself in my own words the answers to the following:

- What is the main point?

-What is the purpose?

- What is the tone?

Here when I finished reading my prediction of the main point was:

To persuade scholars interested in International environmental law to study treaties and direct negotiation rather than International laws/customs.

Answer Choice E matched this nicely because while the answer choice’s difficulty is that is hiding the normative language it reads like a most strongly supported answer. After reading this passage, do you think the author’s point in taking your time is to tell you about the inconsistencies or do you think that they are simplistically trying to tell that one approach ( studying treaties and direct negotiations) is better than studying international customs/precedent? Whenever their is normative language the point is always to tell you that their conclusion is right choice and the passage which is an argument is structured around it. The main point isn’t simply a summary.

If this passage was restructured as an LR question wiping away the detail it might be easier to see that the author is making an argument and the last paragraph is their conclusion. The previous paragraphs are simply premises supporting that conclusion.

As others have said there are very few law schools where the letters of recommendation are not a requirement. I have also been out of school about 10 years and there is no way that I would ask an old professor to write a letter of rec either. Frankly, after that amount of time I would think the letter would come across as generic, lack examples ( which is what makes the best letters in my opinion) and would be a missed opportunity to help address why you want to go to law school and why you would make a great candidate.

Not only have I been out of school around the same time as you, I actually was transferred to a different division in January so I have totally different co workers/management and I don't know them well enough nor do I trust them well enough to alert them to the fact that I might be leaving.

But you have been with your company for 9 years so I think these letters may be easier to get than you might think.

Your first point of contact should be previous supervisors/managers who have left the company for whatever reason and can speak to your work. These people have no skin in the game and are not going to say anything about you applying to law school.

Another resource might be a manager from another department ( maybe even a friend/colleague) for someone like this you may need to help them with some guidance of how you work together or how that person would know of your skills, but it is an option. You could also talk to a previous manager from another department who is again working elsewhere, you just may need to help people like this a little bit and give them a basic template to follow as well as some examples to include.

Another option would be repeat customers/vendors or someone that you have interacted with on a regular basis but doesn't work in the company directly so again, won't have any reason to say anything about you potentially leaving.

You should try to obtain 2/3 solid letters so hopefully one or two of those will come from your workplace but other options would be if you are on any sort of club, sports team, volunteer capacity, or somewhere like that where someone could speak of your abilities and leadership.

It has been awhile since I scheduled one on one but I had the same experience with trying to join study groups. When someone creates a post you see many people expressing interest but few of those people actually show up for a study session and even fewer actually show up for multiple ones. One of the first groups I was in had maybe 10 people show up out of close to 50. By the time week 3 rolled around there were seriously three people- that was it. The second study group I joined ended up growing to 150 and same thing hardly anyone would show up. But then one of the people I studied with and had an idea for a daily group and the first 6 months plus of the pandemic there was about 10 of us that studied together twice a day. You missed three session worst hour a good reason and you were removed from the group. People wanted to join but we ended up keeping the group small because again same experience- people committed to coming and then never showed up and never said a word or other times people showed up and they had clearly already looked up the answers. Long story short- it is difficult to find reliable and consistent people to study with but I will say it is worth it when you finally meet the right people. I have studied with some of the same people for more than a year now.

The stimulus could actually be assuming either one and answer choice E would still be correct. If the stimulus was assuming that they were the ONLY purchasers, answer choice E would be pointing out actually they aren't. There are other people purchasing the cars as well ( families, corporations, small businesses...). If the stimulus was assuming that individuals are the primary purchasers than answer choice E would be pointing out that the proportion of individuals purchasing cars has decreased over the last 25 years.

I took this test as a PT last week. Before I go into the answer choices I make a prediction/objection. I was thinking as a I read this argument: What if things have changed in the past 25 years? And I was also thinking, what if individuals aren't buying all of the cars? These objections lead me solidly to answer choice E in under target time. I did stop on answer choice A because at first glance it does appear to be making these same objections but reading it again, it actually doesn't do anything for the argument. Just because there has been a significant increase in households with more than one wage earner doesn't mean that these households are buying cars.

The original stimulus is making an assumption which is that individuals have been in the past and are currently the primary purchasers of cars. Answer choice E is calling out this assumption by pointing out that actually sales of cars to individuals make up a smaller proportion of sales to sales to individuals than they did 25 years ago. Does this mean that individuals are not the primary purchasers of cars anymore or that corporations or families are buying more cars than individuals? We really don't know and we don't need to. Answer Answer choice E just points out that perhaps the fact that the cars are higher priced relative to the increase in overall salaries isn't as big of a deal as the stimulus thinks it is because some of these cars for sale aren't intended for the individual to purchase anyway.

On the surface this might look a portion/percentage question which often confuses people but it actually also features another cookie cutter flaw which we see in many questions, which is assuming what was true in the past will be true in the future. This is nicely pointed with answer choice E as part of the assumption that the argument is making. Maybe 25 years ago sales to individuals made up 75% of sales but what if they only make up 40% now? The LSAT tests this flaw alot- and does so using questions ranging from a one star question to a 5 star question like this one. This question is actually easier that it looks if you call out the flaw and have a strong prediction going into the answer choices and don't get tempted by some attractive trap answers.

I am a fellow splitter, though with not as extreme of a split. The first thing I would say is that keep in mind that law school admissions tools like predictors don't work well with splitters as we really are wild cards. Last cycle I got into schools where I had less than a 30% chance with scholarship, and waitlisted at a school where I had literally a 1% chance. On the flip side, schools where I was supposed to have a 50- 70% chance either rejected or waitlisted me. There are schools which are more splitter friendly than others - definitely try to get an idea of which schools are more GPA focused or looking for applicants which are more "even" in terms of GPA and LSAT split.

Apply early and apply broadly- which is what I will be doing this year. But also be realistic. While you can certainly blanket the top 14 and beyond keep in mind that the top 3 maybe even top 6 are still highly unlikely to admit you even though your LSAT is very high. The good news is that with your LSAT being as high as it is you should definitely qualify for some merit based fee waivers- use those to apply early. In my opinion, if you get enough waivers you should be applying to at least 15 schools ( and make sure that at least some of these are more like top 20/30's type of schools) so that you have some options.

You are very welcome! And thank you so much for the nice compliments, they really made my day. It has taken a long time to feel like I have this kind of understanding of the test. When I started studying one of the most frustrating parts was that I could watch explanation videos and I could listen to someone explain each answer choice but I still felt like I was missing the behind the scenes approach- like I wanted to see what high scorers were thinking as the processed the stimulus, did they go straight to the answer choices or had they processed any kind of prediction? How did they choose to diagram or skip a question for example.

As I have studied further I have become a firm believer that the answer is in the stimulus. As in when you are reading the stimulus if you are reading a fact set ( like in must be true, or resolve reconcile explain) you should be simplifying each sentence as you are reading, and pushing it together and figuring out what inferences you can push and what conclusions you might be able to make. For an argument on the other hand you should be reading critically, accepting premises as true but making a mental objection or two as you are reading the conclusion. And then based on the question stem, you decide what to do with the inferences or objections you have found. If you were answering a strengthening question you would be blocking the objection or if you were looking at a resolve reconcile explain question you want to have a strong idea of what the paradox is before ever looking at the answer choices. Approaching the stimulus this way helps you begin to see patterns even before you know the names for them.

And maybe not all people who have or do score nicely on the LSAT like to help others or are willing to explain their viewpoint, but I have personally found 7Sage to have some wonderful people who are willing to do so. Keep asking questions- the community here is really amazing!

I was able to answer this question quickly and without outside knowledge. We are looking for 4 answer choices that will reconcile why modular furniture costs almost twice as much as a standard sofa of comparable size and quality. Knowing that this is a reconcile expect question and will have 4 correct answers I am thinking about some possible reasons such as:

- Maybe because there are 3 separate pieces rather than one there need to be multiple shipments to stores or shipping them to stores costs significantly more than one piece.

- Maybe making 3 separate pieces of furniture takes a lot longer or requires special machines or fabrics

- Maybe the inspection process for quality takes significantly longer because there are 3 pieces to inspect rather than one.

The point isn't so much to predict the exact answer because let's face it most of us are not furniture experts, but to get your mind working about what might explain the high-cost difference between modular furniture versus standard furniture.

When I read answer choice B my first reaction was um okay, what does this resolve? The consumer demand for sofas sometimes increases more than the supply. But notice how this answer choice is the only one that doesn't even mention modular sofas versus standard sofas? It is inviting you to make some sort of assumptions or add some sort of story. You can't do that because you are adding assumptions. Answer choice C in comparison specifically mentions modular furniture, and that fashion designers typically make modular furniture. You are right that there is a slight assumption here that a designer anything would cost more than regular but this would be considered common sense as basically anything designer ( clothes, sunglasses, furniture), etc costs more. But compared to answer choice B this "assumption" is very minor. When you have two answer choices where you see any sort of assumption you always want to pick the answer choice which requires the least assumptions or uses "common" sense assumptions.

There were multiple variations of the test and every variation will have its own curve. Powerscore does a review of each test administration and predicts a curve. You can listen to their June LSAT podcast to get this information but it sounded like the curve would be between -7 to -9 depending on which version you took.

When I first learned lawgic I diagramed a lot. I think it is good idea to learn to diagram well so that you really learn this at a deep level. That being said, I have studied for a long time and seldom write anything down except for on logic games. I score in the target range you are asking about. And while I would say there are people that do diagram in this score range, there is also are people who learn to process in their heads or who only diagram out a few questions. When I read I translate each sentence into plain English and ty to push out any inferences or connections to the previous sentence.

So for this stimulus I read:

As soon as I read "Only when" I recognize that this is setting up a necessary condition- In this case I simplify this in my head to say bank deposits are credited same day only when before 3 and Alicia knows that the bank deposit was made before then.

At this point as I am trying to any inferences or think about the sentence I am getting really skeptical because I already see two major flaws.

1st- Just because the deposit is credited the same day only if made before 3 pm does not mean the deposit was actually credited. What if the account number was written down wrong on the deposit slip? What if the ATM machine broke? What if the deposit was made at the wrong bank or to an account that was over drawn?? There could be lots of reasons that a deposit that was made at 2:59 pm was not credited. The only thing I know here is that if a deposit is made at 3:01 pm or later it will NOT be credited the same business day.

2nd- Alicia " knows". Knowledge does not equal fact. Again what if Alicia thought her bank account was at Wells Fargo but actually her account it is at Chase? The assumption that someone's knowledge is fact is another flaw that repeats itself commonly on the LSAT.

Even before I read the second sentence here I could have guessed what Alicia was going to conclude- of course she concluded that the deposit was credited the same business day because I have already figured out that she has made these two flaws.

At this point, knowing it is a parallel flaw reasoning question and the question stem specifically asks about two flaws I know that the flaws I identified are going to be the flaws that I will find in the correct answer. Having seen similar questions I am going to guess that the "wrong" answer choices will look like this:

Not flawed- It is very common in parallel flaw questions to see one or even two answer choices that are not in fact flawed. They are attractive because intuitively they look and feel good. But if the stimulus is flawed we must pick a a flawed answer choice, same thing if we see a parallel reasoning question. If a parallel reasoning question has a valid argument we need to pick a valid answer choice.

We will also see other answer choices that feature one of the flaws, not both. Since sufficient/necessity confusion is the most common and favorite of LSAT flaws I would guess we will see multiple answer choices that have this flaw but of course only one of them will have the knowledge being taken as fact issue. This is of course the correct answer.

Knowing also that I am looking for these two issues means that I don't need to need to diagram out the answer choices. I can quickly scan answer choice A for example and see that it doesn't have any kind of knowledge piece and eliminate quickly. On first scan answer choice B looks flawed but not the same way. I slow down when I see answer choice C to make sure it checks out and then quickly check the other answer choices.

I fully agree that we should expect and plan for medians to rise, particularly in the top 50 or so schools. Not only was there a dramatic rise in high LSAT scores this last cycle, and an overall rise in the number of candidates but the US News and World report also included debt levels for graduates last year which contributed to dramatic rise and fall of some schools in the rankings. For schools that rose in the rankings you can bet that they want to stay there and likely keep climbing and for schools that went down in the rankings they were absolutely targeting higher LSAT score students to try to climb back to previous positions.

That being said self reported data is both a small and incomplete sample size as well as dramatically skewed towards the most successful of students. This is similar to looking at Reddit's LSAT forum and thinking almost everyone is targeting and scoring in the 170 range or looking at the admissions page on Reddit and thinking those people are truly representative of most people applying to law school. Thankfully, neither of these things are true.

I will be curious to see how both example school's data ultimately pans out but I would think ( and hope) that a 4 point increase in LSAT is unlikely for Cornell but that a 1-2 point increase is highly likely and potential applicants should be considering this when applying this upcoming cycle. I would also think in watching law school data that many earlier applicants in this upcoming cycle's will be applicants who either didn't get offers or didn't get offers that they wanted last cycle. And there is no doubt that there were some wild outcomes last cycle- I remember seeing someone with a 4.0/ 3.8 that didn't get a penny for scholarship money to T-14, people with mid and high 170 scores with zero offers or only offers from safety schools.

But it isn't quite as depressing as it sounds. I know of one school that has actually reported their data for last cycle ( this was quoted in a newspaper) and that is Notre Dame. Their median went up by one point. I also know that Emory was targeting a rise back in the rankings by trying to raise their median by two points and while they had many applicants it looked more like their median was going to be raised by one point and 2 points was more of a possibility rather than certainty.

The point of this post ,however, about not resting on your laurels for those who have not exhausted their LSAT takes still holds. I think it would be a fair estimate to add 2 points to each median of schools you are targeting and then try to think about how that factors into your application decision. While of course applying in September is ideal, taking the August or October exams are still plenty early enough in the cycle. Just don't go the opposite way and chase that high score so long you don't end up applying until next February or so- in that case it would be better to wait until the next cycle.

And best of luck to everyone receiving their scores on Wednesday! As a community we will celebrate with those who achieve success but lets also not forget about our friends and study buddies who are still on this long journey. If anyone needs to talk after finding out their results please feel free to reach out!

When you apply for Law school you apply on the LSAC website and each application will ask you if you are applying regular admission or early decision. If you are choosing early decision and have read all the terms and conditions for that particular school you would go ahead and select the option there.

@samparkpse330- Remember that there were multiple combinations of the test. I had the same games section as you as you but who knows about LR/ RC. Powerscore already put out their podcast and I know for the particular combo I had they predicted about a -8 for 170. I actually predicted the same based on my personal evaluation of the test. Some other combos may be more like a -9 or even -7 but for the majority of test takers about -8 would be a decent guesstimate.

LG was a difficult section for me to improve in. My BR was consistently -0 for awhile before I finally figured out how to match my timed scores. I would suggest looking up Pacifico's fool proof method as a I know a lot of people have been successful there. I personally spent a long time working though PT 1-35, particularly the first 16 Prep tests. I remember getting so frustrated, at time I felt dumb or that I should just hang up the towel because I was not getting it. Having such a dramatic difference sounds like you are approaching the games totally differently timed versus in BR. I am not sure where you are in your prep but it may be that you just aren't quite ready to take full length practice test and would benefit from spending more time in the CC or drilling or another possibility is that you are brute forcing answers. While games can be brute forced if we have all day to do it, it is neither the most efficient way or even likely that you will finish all 4 games timed.

Here are things I started to do that helped me make improvement.

I went back to the CC and made sure the conditional rules were ingrained in my head.

I knew that I struggled to see inferences that it felt like other tests takers could see so I started trying to make worlds whenever possible. This helped me not only in pushing out inferences but also in realizing that there is not just one way to approach a game. And like it or not, when we are actually taking the test we don't get to stop and run and watch the explanation video to see the "best" set up.

I practiced making worlds with games both untimed and also in BR. When I did BR I tried to make worlds for every game and also tried to chose a rule different than I had chosen timed to make worlds on. When learning this I would watch the explanation video on 7 Sage or sometimes on LSAT Demon which I used sporadically throughout my prep.

When I first started trying to make worlds I only tried to make them if I thought that my worlds would be fairly complete. As my prep continued I started to realize that even if I had 2 or 3 partially completed worlds it would often be enough to push out inferences and eliminate wrong answer choices. Rules that are prime candidates for making worlds on are highly restrictive rules or rules where there is overlap with another rule. If "S" is mentioned in more than one rule I am looking to make worlds on the basis of S for example. Conditionals are often easier to deal with when making worlds- set up a world where the conditional is triggered and one where it isn't for example.

When reading rules initially turn negative rules into positive rules. A common example of this can be seen in grouping games. Sometimes you will read that N can't go with O and also can't go with H. But who can G actually go with? Is G further limited by other rules or distribution for example?

Spend time really mastering the more common game types and "easier" games- not all games are created equal and you really want to bank time for a harder game.

For Miscellaneous games they are often not as hard as the look. In fact, they are often very rule driven and sometimes the questions are very easy. LSAC is trying to get people to panic and also catch people who have only drilled "newer" games and will waste their time trying to set up the game board. This is the same kind of mental trap as sticking a five star question in as #6 in LR. LSAC are very very good at knowing how our minds work and laying these traps well. If you encounter a miscellaneous game simply take a deep breath and be flexible.

The games section overall requires you to be flexible, read carefully and look for the "smarter" way of approaching not only the individual game but the section overall.

Early decision and applying early are two different things. Most apps open about September. If you apply early and are accepted you still have the option to be accepted to other schools. When you apply early decision you can only apply to one school at a time this way and they MUST either accept you, deny you or move you move to regular decision before you can chose to apply early decision to another school. Some schools have early decision options relatively late ( like February or March) so it would be possible to apply early decision to one school and if that school either denies you or move you to regular decision than you could always apply to another school early decision.

But it is important to research the individual schools early decision program as they are typically binding meaning that if they accept you, you have to go because you have signed a binding contract. There are some schools where early decision is non biding but the majority of schools use early decision as binding. Part of your research should also include looking into how the school handles scholarship with early decision. Some schools have a set scholarship for people accepted through early decision, some schools let you know what the scholarship will be before you sign the binding contract and yet other schools you have to sign the contract before you know any financial information.

Early decision can be a good option for students who are applying to their dream school and know that is where they would absolutely go or also a good option for splitters who really need that extra boost of applying early and of schools knowing that they will make the commitment if accepted. But early decision is very advantageous for schools because students are essentially signing on the dotted line before being accepted. Do your research and ask questions before committing is the advice I would give you.

These are very different questions types and also requires very different approaches.

Mss questions are a top down question type meaning that the stimulus can support what conclusion. I treat MSS questions like a soft must be true. To approach this question type, as I am reading I am translating the sentences into plain English and pushing the sentence up into the sentence before it. By the end of the stimulus I have typically drawn some basic inferences or conclusions and while I can't always predict the exact answer choice I often know exactly what we are looking for because I have already pushed out the inference on my own. So based on the premises I know what you can and can not conclude. This question type generally features softer language as correct answer choices using words such as " sometimes", " often", " could" and " might" as examples. To improve on this question I would suggest doing some of these untimed. Translate the stimulus in your own words ( write it down if you need to) and then write out a few different conclusions you are able to draw based on the stimulus. While you won't always predict the correct answer you will see that the LSAT likes to draw the same type of conclusions over and over again using different subject matter of course. With practice you will start to see some of these patterns. I would also practice must be true questions to improve on this question type.

Sufficient assumption questions are bottom up questions meaning that which of the answer choices if added to the stimulus would allow you to draw the conclusion already given? Sufficient assumption questions are about creating valid arguments and provide the bridge or missing piece that creates a valid argument. In other words they are the ultimate strengthener. If you were answering a strengthening question and multiple answer choices strengthened the argument you would pick the answer choice that strengthened the question so much it created a valid argument hands down every time. Now, what is difficult about the hardest strengthen questions is sometimes they just keep an argument alive or block a weakener but still if you could make up an answer choice you would create an answer choice the links the premises to the conclusion and creates a valid argument. This is similar to what a sufficient assumption is doing it. It is the missing piece that links the premises to the conclusion and proves the argument. Common argument forms are: A--B or A---B---C or even D. These argument forms as well as contrapositives are used all the time. The LSAT writers cleverly hide these simple argument forms behind convoluted language or difficult subject matter. Or for contrapositives the LSAT writers are also testing our ability to see what would create a valid argument and also knowing how to recognize its contrapositive. One of the questions that throws newer LSAT students off the most is a question that looks deceivingly simple, it is only a couple of sentences and is a SA question about being loved, but the correct answer is expressed in the form of a contrapositive which hides it well. Sufficient assumption questions typically use stronger language like "Always", "Never" "None" ect. To practice these I suggest reviewing valid argument forms until they are memorized ( flash cards helped alot at that time) and then create problem sets with SA, PSA and NA questions to practice the differences.

None of the Flex or take at home tests ( which August on) will be disclosed. May 2021 was not disclosed either. For a disclosed tests you receive a copy of the test and answers as well as your raw score and what you missed. No one from May received that and there was multiple forms of the test. LSAC just eventually chose on version of the May Flex to release as a practice “Flex” test but it still wasn’t a disclosed test.

The way you break the argument down it does not look like answer choice D would weaken the conclusion. But your breakdown is a little too simplistic because it is missing the doctor’s hypotheses regarding the studies and not just the conclusion he draws from it. While the first part of the argument says that no correlation is found in studies 3 and 4 the Doctor hypothesizes that it is because the children are older that no correlation was found. And then the Doctor uses that hypotheses to conclude that if the nightlights cause nearsightedness that the effect disappear with age.

Though the flaw is covered up very very well in this question the flaw here is actually one we have seen before: You can’t take a lack of evidence to conclude something.

In other words the Doctor has used the lack of evidence of nearsightedness existing in older children in studies 3 and 4 to form a hypothesis and then draw a conclusion about nearsightedness. This is an major LSAT no no and something we see in easier arguments. Look at an example of another question that actually has this same flaw but is an easier question: Prep Test 20 section 4 question 18. There are much easier versions of questions of this flaw but this is one that comes to mind.

Answer choice D is simply pointing out this flaw by saying actually there wasn’t enough children to draw any kind of correlation/ causation conclusion. You might want to picture this in real numbers to grasp how powerful this is. Let’s say that studies 3 and 4 have 10,000 children and all these kids are older than the kids in the first study. And of these children we only find 10 kids that are nearsighted and slept with the light on while there is actually almost 10,000 that did sleep with the night and aren’t nearsighted. This makes the doctor’s hypothesis much more plausible. For comparison let’s say that studies 3 and 4 only had a 100 kids and they are all different ages and some slept with the light and some didn’t. Even if no correlation was found like what was reported there just wasn’t enough kids studied for the doctor to make their hypothesis and then make their conclusion that evidence lacking can in fact allow him to draw a conclusion.

I completely agree with this post and have found posting here to be a huge help to my own prep. I heard a statistic on an admissions podcast ( likely Spivey) that teachers score an average of 6 points higher on the LSAT. While we certainly can’t all rush out and become teachers the skill here that is enabling them to score higher is the ability not just to understand a concept themselves but the ability to understand it so well that they can break down for others- including people at different skill levels, people with different educational backgrounds and people whose learning style is not like our own.

In my prep I have found two wonderful way to replicate and really learn these skills:

The first and the point of this post is participating in discussion board posts, and answering questions posted on lessons. If people take the time to listen to podcasts from previous sages the advice is repeated time and time again that they found themselves enjoying the test more and improving their scores when they started participating on 7 Sage more.

I can attest to this and also say that because I have studied for an extensive period of time I have supplemented my studying with other study programs but since I have found 7Sage I have never left. And that is because the community is incredible! I have not had my own questions answered I have also been able to attend webinars, group tutoring from Sages at no cost. I have even held a couple of my own webinars to help give back to the community that has given me so much.

Participating in discussion board posts benefitted me a lot when I commuted to work and only had a short time to do some prep. Spending time really thinking through a question at the level I felt comfortable with posting an answer helped supplement my prep as well as helped others. I have received many messages of thanks from the community and those messages always brighten my day.

The second way to replicate the teaching experience is to join or start a small study group or study buddy. I joined and tried several groups before finally finding my people. I have studied with some of these people for over a year now. One of the most valuable things I have done with a group is to do RC passages or LR questions live. To look at questions you have never seen before and explain your process and articulate your reasoning really strengthens your understanding. I think it is also important to find people or a group where you feel comfortable enough to get a question wrong or possibly get it correct for the wrong reasons. Learning how to make mistakes and how to fail are also essential parts of this test.

No matter which way people chose to participate in the community I can promise that you will get much in return!

I am repeat test taker and I can still remember walking out of that first LSAT dumbfounded. I didn’t remember a single question, I remember having a district feeling of wanting to run the entire time I took the test. I think it is somewhat normal to feel overwhelmed but I know it was really bad for me. If you don’t get your desired score it does get better if you take it again. You also learn what works well for you and what doesn’t but I do believe that you have to have control over the test and your own performance to reach your maximum potential.

Sorry to hear that you had an issue during the test. I would recommend following up with your complaint by Thursday at the latest. The retake is likely to be on Friday and you will want to make sure that you are able to get approved and get a spot for the retake.

I have been through the retake process and as long as you have competed the LSAT writing your score will be released the same day as everyone elses.

That isn’t an assumption you need to make. The stimulus specifically tells us that the number of accidents increased every year until they were at the highest point 10 years ago. We can logically infer that a highway is dangerous if there was an increasing number of accidents because it is supported by the premises which we take as fact.

Thanks for posting this! I am a very anxious test taker but I have been through multiple flex administrations now so I thought I would share some perspective.

First, we all need to know ourselves and what does or doesn’t make us nervous or impact our mental state. I used to be unable to read comments or really anything regarding the tests. It would start anxiety and panic and worst of all I would start to focus on things that were out of my control. I would focus on the curve or what was the really hard game or RC passage everyone was referring to? Or what if I got an “easier” version and the curve was so tight that I had no real chance to hit my goal score?? Anyone who obsessing over these or similar things might be truly benefitted the most staying off social media.

Since I have been studying before the flex even started I can now ensure you guys that while I have not read every comment or every post there is nothing that I have read is out of the ordinary for these flex tests. There has never been an LSAT where there wasn’t hard questions or a hard game or reading comp passage.

We need to remember that the people posting will be disproportionately people who had a negative or unexpected experience- no matter if it is a proctor issue or a bad section or even a bad test.

For the most part we don’t know who these people are, how long they have studied, if they have previously taken the LSAT and what kind of test taker they are.

We can’t assume that when we read comments from people about having to guess on an entire game even though they normally finish that this person has in fact completed a sufficient number of games and a sufficient number of practice tests. There are plenty of people testing who have taken but a handful of PT or have been studying a minimal amount of time.

We also can’t assume that people have the same goals as ourselves. We might read about someone “killed” a section we found really difficult not realizing that this person’s goal score was a 150. We might also read about how horribly a section went and then double question ourselves when that section feels okay to us thinking we have fell for all the trap answers. We don’t realize the person posting about how horrible they did had a score goal of 175+, so if they thought that the missed more than a couple on the section it was horrible for them.

We also need to remember that our self perception regarding this test may not be even be remotely accurate. This is why we take practice tests so that we can have some idea of what we might score. But even they are not perfect indicators as the flex has more of a score variance than a standard test.

So what can we do at this point?

We can realize we are not going to learn much tomorrow. For people who want to do some light LSAT that is totally fine but this isn’t a test we can cram for. Instead we should focus on our metal and physical well being tomorrow and make sure that we are ready to focus for Tuesday or Thursday. We should also plan that the test will be hard but that is okay because we are well prepared. We should accept that we may make some mistakes and it is okay if things don’t go perfectly. And most of all we should strive to remember that we have put in the work and we are ready!

PT 88 is known to be one of the hardest overall games section. Not that every game on its own is incredibly difficult but combined it made for a very difficult section. Each game has some twist or another with unequal distribution being the running theme for this section overall. When it was administered in person as the first section many people were traumatized for the remainder of the test. People who had supposedly been consistently going -0 in LG were not able to finish the section. Reddit erupted in anger there were posts all over all 7 Sage as well. This was a difficult test- not just LG but RC on this test is no joke either. The curve of -13 reflected this- this was a curve which hadn't been seen much in modern tests.

Here is what I will say about these games- they are learnable as is this section. It was one I spent time fool proofing and one I will go over again before June because of its learnability. Another thing I want to point out is to take the time to listen to JY's explanation of the flowers game. He gives a very inspirational pep talk on how to handle odd games.