- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
@JacobBaska Thanks for the insight. Like you mentioned, in the current market where law schools have significantly more bargaining power. However, this power seems to raise the LSAT threshold only marginally; they have plenty of "fish" in the 170+ pool, yet still opted to take a considerable portion of people with a lower LSAT score. I do not think this is necessarily good or bad, just trying to understand what role exactly does the LSAT score play in admissions as of 2026.
Noticed that "morally right to reveal" cannot be on the right hand side of the arrow, and narrowed down between A and C. The doctor in C said that "sometimes" the info could harm the patient, while for revealing to be morally wrong it has to be "likely" to result in harm. Thus A is the only one that fits.
Nevertheless, I read the stimulus the wrong way.
The second condition should be:
promised and likely harm others --> morally wrong
I thought it was:
promised --> morally wrong
likely harm others --> morally wrong
and by combining the two:
promised or likely harm others --> morally wrong
@Stas1973 Thank you for the help. I see how C could make sense, it just isn't strong enough to be the overwhelmingly better choice compared to A if I were to be LSAT level pedantic.
The reason I end up using to convince myself that C is better, is that the argument is about parking and not about the maintenance.
In your analogy the question would be more like "What is the baseline energy level of people studying for the LSAT?" The group questioned is so broad that knowing their general energy level would not be helpful in gauging your energy level as an individual. In the stimulus the only parking area affected is the one in front of the building, while the scope of "vicinity" is vague and broad.
For the most recent admission cycle, there are close to 9k applicants with a score above 170 according to LSAC's official data. Yet class sizes at T14 only add up to about 4.5k. Considering most T14s have 25th percentiles below 170, this means that less than 40% of the 170+ scorers end up attending a T14.
Maybe a low GPA could account for some, but I find it hard to belief that 60% of 170+ scorers have a GPA so low that it raises a red flag. Moreover, I feel like most who score above a 170 should be competent enough to not bomb the soft factors too badly.
What are people's thoughts on this? Is it just that 173 or maybe even 175 is now the new 170, or have I overlooked some common pitfalls?
Did not understand the question stem correctly. I thought of it as like "which of the following comparison is incorrect" while the real meaning is more like "which of the following is a true discrepancy."
A)
A: historians added the word "narrative" to their titles, but it was still historiography.
B: not exactly clear what role narrative could play in legal writing, but there is a story at the heart of every case while law students act as if there is none.
B) evaluative claims: claims that have value judgement
A: sap vitality, unfathomable to those living in the past, cannot stimulate students who yearn to connect.
B: too often write badly
C)
A: the conference theme influence only titles but not the actual content
B: no example!
D)
A: 3rd to 5th sentence of first paragraph.
B: last sentence of first paragraph and last sentence of second paragraph.
E) this one is tricky. passage B does give explanation to some phenomena (see red herring in B), but no analysis, conclusion, or hypothesis are made.
red herring in B: legal writing, because of the purpose it serves, is necessarily ruled by linear logic; lawyer write as they see other lawyers write, and influenced by ... often write badly. both are claims, not fully fledged theories.
@KR I think of it this way: if enable abuse of power, then cannot keep secret unless compelling. When the "unless" part is triggered then sure one can keep the secret, but that does not negate the if clause (enable abuse of power).
What made me skeptical about choice B is the part "the literary style she used in The Awakening", because the last sentence in the last paragraph literally says "unified less by their style". Through process of elimination, and considering this is a summary not a main point question, I did come to the correct answer. The amount of time spent on this one sent me into panic though :(
My initial understanding of the last sentence of passage B (one of the two places where "reductionist" is mentioned) is that being a reductionist or not shouldn't make a difference in one's stance towards paranormal phenomena. Wouldn't that be the closest to choice B?
Moreover, the author of passage B, though clearly skeptical of paranormal phenomena, never labeled himself as a reductionist, or made any relevant statements regarding this. How could this be an example of the assertion? I thought "generally" is not strong enough for a principle to be applied to one specific person in the LSAT.
please #help
How are we supposed to see from the wording of AC C that the city council knew the study conclusion BEFORE they voted? My train of thought was that the council members, who have already voted for rent control, could've agreed with the study's conclusion and be like "yeah we thought it will be helpful and didn't see the quality and availability issue coming. oops." in hindsight.
The other four only have to be "supported"; it is not a "must be true" question.
From the perspective of "taking away not the main gain but profit made along the way" E is the best option.
Chose D because I was focusing on that the penalty should "completely offset any profit", and thought that in the athlete case, profit could be any achievements/sponsors/opportunities gained while using drugs. Thus prohibiting them from future competitions would "offset" the gains they made. Whereas merely using the profit of books in AC E does not touch on how much the profit weighs compared to the original crime.
HOWEVER, the first sentence in the stimulus is the conclusion, and the second is a clarification for the if...then... linkage. I got it wrong because I was not locked in on THE conclusion!
If replace "promulgating official edicts and policies" with "framing and enforcing the law", would D become a valid choice? And if "as used until then had provided" is removed, would B be disqualified?
As indicated by the question stem, "absence of any specific intention" is the most important trait, but I was more caught into "revealing the difference".
@ChadC I agree with your logic, but what really threw me off is the wording of (A). It says there's little evidence for an "increase" in intensity. However hypothesis #2 is 100% compatible with "a decrease in intensity" during that period and a scope of the whole inner solar system. I cannot see why its stronger than a direct counter to a previously established proof (e.g. rock not actually from Mars).
I am having a hard time convincing myself that (A) is a valid choice. It says that there's little evidence for an "increase" in the intensity, while hypothesis 2 indicates that there is a "declining heavy bombardment throughout the inner solar system". No increase in bombardment does not mean there is none. I agree that (D) is pretty weak, but none of the other choices even pushes the argument in the right direction.
While B is not strong, I cannot convince myself why C is the better answer. I ruled out C in the first place because if conclusion is true, then mental resource is shared between writing and leaning composition. If a kid had their mental resources allocated to pick up the former (improve to write automatically), then shouldn't that leave fewer resources for learning composition skills? Yet C indicated the opposite and weakened the argument.
After reading all the comments I still do not understand why the excerpt is not a premise. It elaborates why "the more garbage sorting the better."
Second sentence in the stimulus says factoring those who'd refuse to comply when asked but are willing to, under a voluntary system, sort garbage, more people would sort their garbage in total using a voluntary system. Thus "more garbage sorted under voluntary system."
Then only by combining both, "the more garbage sorting the better" and "more garbage sorted under voluntary system," can we get to the conclusion "voluntary system is better".
Since the excerpt provides a reason to maximize garbage sorting, wouldn't that make it a required premise? Like, if it's taken a way from the stimulus, how do we know that a nonvoluntary system wouldn't be preferred for [insert whatever alternative reason in LSAT context]?
Feel like (C) could have been worded in a better way. How are we supposed to tell the scope of "the building's vicinity"?
I did not pick (C) only because "areas surrounding the building" does not necessarily represent the "area in front of the building". It could be private property, or the only area that you can't park for free. Like, there are plenty of scenarios where the parking situation in the building's vicinity doesn't reflect the parking situation directly in front of the building. Trait of a group as a whole does not necessarily apply to part of the group.
If (C) applies, it almost seems like (A) could also be bended to fit in. Attacking "If the maintenance had been done on a different day, I would have gotten to the meeting on time." What if the meeting has something to do with the maintenance itself, and would always happen concurrently with the maintenance? (A) could help rule out this possibility.
Why does the first line in passage A not count as refining the definition of what constitutes of "games", and why does the first paragraph in passage B not count as refining the definition of sports as something rooted in high arts?