I would keep studying, see how you're PTing close to the November exam. If you still don't feel ready, don't take it. Ask yourself: If this is the right path for me, will one year make that much of a difference in the scope of my career? It really won't. I'm almost 30 and on the same path. It might, however, give you further time to reflect on why you might be having those doubts. Is it really just because the timing isn't lining up the way you might like and you need to get some anxiety out, or is there something deeper there? If the former, look at the bigger picture and you'll see a year isn't much time at all. AND it could give you a ton of time to fully prep and feel like you did the best you possibly can.

But that would still be part of the overall prosperity

@ovid306 said:

@sloanemily8 said:

It seems really unfair that extra time on an LSAT isn't noted in any way. Just read an article about the socioeconomic disparities among students diagnosed and given "504" status which gives them special accommodations - it's bad. If someone gets a 174 with extra time and I get a 174 in the initially-allotted time, there should be a record of that, if we're competing for the same spots in law school.

That would be blatant discrimination against test takers who have disabilities. Your claim that it is 'unfair' presumes that those who seek and have accommodations are not actually making use of them (i.e., "need" them). It's subjective for everyone. If you are neurotypical and don't need accommodations, that doesn't mean your test is any harder. Accommodations just makes the playing field more level for those who are not neurotypical.

Exactly right. The LSAC was actually forced to stop marking it because of this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/law-school-admission-council-agrees-systemic-reforms-and-773-million-payment-settle-justice

@divyakumar326419 this is a great idea that I will look into! thank you!

@dannywuzhifeng6 said:

How do you know if you rly have ADHD? I have been suspecting growing up that I have difficulty focusing on doing things but, fortunately, exams are never too difficult for me to fail at them or whatever... until LSAT. so I have been thinking about getting diagnosed to see if I could have some reasonable accomodations but seeing other comments esp. regarding how sometimes prolonging the test might actually make it worse coz you are so damn tired having sit there for hours when you are in the last section or two.....

Any thought on this?

#help

I started realizing I might have symptoms in my mid-20s when I was no longer new in my field but still struggled to keep up with basic tasks at work. I found in a doctor in my network who did an assessment (took about 2 hours, had cognitive tests and questions about my symptoms). We then started medication at the lowest dose until I found a level that works for me. Hope this helps!

@sloanemily8 said:

It seems really unfair that extra time on an LSAT isn't noted in any way. Just read an article about the socioeconomic disparities among students diagnosed and given "504" status which gives them special accommodations - it's bad. If someone gets a 174 with extra time and I get a 174 in the initially-allotted time, there should be a record of that, if we're competing for the same spots in law school.

Do you have a disability making the test harder? If not, then understand that accommodations are bringing up those that do to that level. Thank you.

Wondering how those with accommodations found it to work out on the actual test. Besides my doctor noting it can be hard to get approved, I was worried that the extra time might be hard on my mental endurance. I always do way worse on my last section during PTs for example.

A bit late but they mean the same thing. This is covered in the Advanced Logic lesson. Separating them still means TG forces out O and F. You should use whichever makes the most sense to you!

Just wanted to say thank you to every one who commented! I've started PTing on weekends and breaking up other PTs in chunks, which has been SUPER helpful. Also upping my daily reading, especially non-fiction. I've also loved seeing how others working full-time are making it through! We got this!

It seems most people who get this wrong have chosen D. What made me strike this AC is what JY says beginning at 2:17. You need an undergraduate degree to be appointed, but just because you have an undergraduate degree does not guarantee you will be appointed.

Looking at conditional logic:

appointed → UD

It is necessary to have a degree but not sufficient.

Another way of looking at this is the fact that it is necessary to have an undergraduate degree to get into law school, but that's not enough, of course. It's not sufficient to get into law school alone, but it is necessary.

I hope this is helpful!