- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
LSAT practice commitment issues
Admissions profile
Discussions
There should be a clock on the wall in your locker area. Just be mindful of when you left and that you have to go through security again to go back in. You have to be there on time or your test could be cancelled.
I'd remove all labeling from your chap stick, you should be fine though. A water bottle also needs to have all labeling removed. They give you paper and pencils. You can bring two tissues at a time inside. I brought Tylenol and Focalin, they had to be on a tissue out of their containers.
They have noise canceling headphones (my friend and I both agreed we disliked them). I brought my own foam ear plugs and it was amazing, I did not notice anyone around me. They have to be foam and have no string, mine were the pink box from CVS and those were approved without a problem. Some center also have foam ear plugs if you ask, mine did but my friends did not.
Bring a zip-up. It may get cold, you may get hot, and you want to be able to take it on and off without consuming your time. Bring a snack that's quick to eat, someone had like four protein bars. I don't think you'll need that. Stay hydrated! You'll kill this. It's as scary as you let it be.
I left that test feeling sO good but was scared by how good I felt and this is insane. I only took September to get a feel of the test before October, and October I would strive for the 170s.
I'm not sure if I'll retake it so 7Sage you may see me again. But I am so ecstatic.
For reference, besides my diagnostic, I took 4 PTs. I got a 162, 162, 161, and a 167.
I consistently seem to gloss over the stimulus and need to spend more time analyzing.
B is wrong (and felt wrong despite my choosing it) because the problem was the "exaggerating the risk" portion which is not dealt with by this answer choice. Nowhere does it say that it won't happen.
A on the other hand, does this. I did not interpret the stimulus as a parts of a whole flaw. However, "quite unlikely at any given stage" does not mean as a whole.
I answered E, but yes, I also thought when I chose this answer that it is not Michaels fault that his dumbass nephew lost it.
D makes more sense. While reading the stimulus, I did not take the time to thoroughly understand everything. As a result, I missed the "customary in the situation" portion, in which case Olga's regular computer gift is customary and not anything considerably generous.
If I'm understanding this:
Some question styles may be naturally easier for you than others. I think the ones that you find yourself struggling with should be the ones that you focus on. So if it is conditionals, when you get the question right, write what made that answer choice correct. If you get it wrong, why did you choose the one you chose, what's wrong about it, and why is the right one better. Once you start drilling, learning from the mistake is going to be the most beneficial step for your growth.
A: It does not contradict the conclusion.
B: Does not discuss anyone's character, just the accuracy of their claims. You could argue someone lying is an attack on their character but that does not apply here.
C: This feels like a necessary sufficient question and this answer choice addresses that. The theorem being provable does not mean that Fermat did not lie. It can be true and he can still be a liar, he just was not mistaken.
D: The term provable does not require being defined here. It is not vague or ambiguous in the stimulus.
E: Nothing here is clearly false. What claim shared falls under this?
A: This flaw is an example of circular reasoning. Meaning that the evidence for the conclusion is simply a premise stated earlier in the stimulus. This may be a flaw but is not applicable in this scenario.
B: This flaw is an example of appeal to unqualified authority. This is a general flaw but not applicable to this scenario. The stimulus does not rely on expert testimony.
C: Nothing "can" happen. The author is stating these things are happening, and is assuming the result of them.
D: This connection is clear. Just because traditional school was built on something that is no longer happening, does not mean it will fall apart. This thing was necessary for the development, not the continuation. This applies.
E: This does not discuss the value of an institution but the ability for the institution to continue. Something can lack value but still exist.
My initial thoughts: Ruth doesn't say half the stuff Stephanie claims.
"To be worthy of public trust" but Ruth said "To become a politician", this is fine, these should connect (even if they don't always).
Stephanie states "it is not enough" but Ruth does not insinuate that this is the only thing needed to become a politician. Just that it should be something someone needs to become a politician. A person needs a lot of things. Stephanie is putting a lot of weight on Ruth's statements.
A: This may have been my second choice, meaning it's probably the trap
Her point of view is not opposite of Ruth's however.
She isn't disagreeing with Ruth's actual point but the one she's pushing. She may believe that diverse experience is important, she's not saying it isn't, she's saying it is not enough.
B: I don't think this matters.
But, this has the same problem as A. She isn't saying it doesn't matter, she's saying it's not enough.
C: This aligns the most with my initial thought.
A lot of what she says does not align with Ruth's argument. She is arguing a much weaker claim than Ruth made. This feels the strongest.
D: Why is this needed? This is not relevant.
E: None of this mentioned, and none of it is necessary.
A. This is the clearest answer.
"Since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the statisticians claim must be mistaken".
If we did need beliefs to survive, that doesn't mean the claim is wrong. It doesn't negate the statisticians claim, UNLESS you assume that the claim made can't be right if survival is on the line. But the stimulus never says that.
B. "Never change the set". Accepting new beliefs is a change and goes against the stimulus.
C. That's fine. This can be true. But that doesn't weaken the argument. There would still be some belief sets that would hinder an individuals ability to survive.
D. This means nothing. It used buzz words and is completely irrelevant.
If we needed a reason beyond that to get rid of this choice, it completely ignores the rules in the stimulus.
You reject a belief when given adequate evidence against it. This says that we should accept them even if this evidence exists against them. SO no
E. They don't need to be correct beliefs, but if evidence is shown that they are not, you cannot hold onto them anymore. The "correct" does not matter to the author so much as the belief.
A: Look for key language in the test. Depends turning into an if later on. We are working with necessary sufficient claims. In this case, one thing was required and therefore another is sufficient.
The other answers are mind-numbing. However, they aren't as conclusive. Even if it's still confusing, this answer choice reads best out of the others on format.
B: Belief vs. Fact. It misses all the necessary and sufficiency that is the basis of this argument. Even if it were built upon beliefs, that's not the problem with this passage and isn't a weakening point. But, belief is never claimed to be true or fact.
C: No it doesn't.
D: Demonstrates concepts and connections but does not claim that they are the same.
E: Circular reasoning. It's not. The author has their reasoning and proof so the argument does not solely rely on the definition given in the beginning.
My thought process: /HP -> /ATW | ATW -> HP | Flaw? How can high-tech equipment aid in high productivity? If training requires this tech, HP cannot be achieved without adequate training, and if adequate training cannot be done without high-tech, HP requires tech.
A: When did it do this?
B: This is exactly where my mind initially went. We know what high productivity needs. Now what if adequate training needs the equipment. It becomes a chain and high productivity becomes dependent on it as well.
C: This does not matter. It is not talking about what is desirable or not. It's discussing what produces high productivity, the stimulus does not care if you want it.
D: This might be an argument for another question, but it does not matter here. We do not care about educating workers, we care about that last sentence.
E: I ultimately chose B, but this one was tricky and a trap. "Cannot contribute" does not matter. The argument is not if this equipment can contribute to high productivity, it is whether or not high productivity is dependent on this equipment.
This answer choice does not create a dependency.
I still need to practice breaking down conditionals, but I generally do fine just by breaking them down logically. So, in this case, E was clear.
A: This is clearly stated in the stimulus and doesn't directly cause any issues to the conclusion. Reporters can still scoop. Not so much a flaw as a statement.
B: "Need not" does not negate "can", they do not need to but they can. Does not follow a logical chain; nonetheless one that prevents scooping.
C: This is not relevant. It does not prevent other reporters from "scooping" but simply states they are sharing.
D: This still shows that there is a discrepancy amongst knowledge between reporters. Meaning that there is room for "scooping"
E: You can't scoop from other reporters if you all know the same information. This creates a flaw in the argument.
also "scoop" is driving me insane.
I'm in the same boat. I've spoken to a few admissions counselors directly and while pre-Halloween is great, if you think that extra month will have a significant impact on you LSAT score. Do it. You definitely want the best overall application. Especially if you're applying to more competitive schools.
@aikol.iva You can apply if you have another LSAT already documented and then submit updated numbers if you are still waiting to hear from schools at that point. (I think) (No one yell if I'm wrong)
I'm still working on my improving, however, I noticed my biggest change came when I started spending significantly more time on the passage. I was always going back and forth for a lot of questions, but once I invested the extra 2 to 3 minutes on reading the passage instead and maybe writing those little summaries, everything flows a lot better once I get to questions and I often make up that time.
Also being more confident in any question that almost feels instinctual. I used to want to go back and check for most questions, even ones that the answer felt as natural as 2 +2 = 4. Now, I don't have to go back to the passage and find it, that wastes time, if I felt that confident, I need to go to the next question and spend that time somewhere else.
If you're not trying to get a perfect RC, a thing a friend of mine does (similar score goal to you), they spend extra time on the passage style that they are comfortable with. So, if it's law and science? They are investing in trying to get perfect scores on those passages, not every single one. Often times they have little to no time for that last section, but they are way more confident in the sections before it.
Also, just something I've started doing that's made me more confident is reading instead of rotting in my day to day. I already read books, but generally biographies or political science pieces that interested me. Now, if I have time to be on my phone, I'm using it to invest in my future. I'll find some science articles, humanity pieces, etc. This way when I take the LSAT these passages read much more naturally to me. I've already noticed a difference in the science pieces.
@Oblivion I think it's to signal that the phrases are interchangeable. If Luke is a Jedi <-> then Yoda trained him. If Yoda trained Luke <-> then Luke is a Jedi.
I came back to this at the end of the "Conditional and Set Logic" portion because I was still a little confused on the definitions. But reading it again with the information I have now, the "Let's Review" section makes way more sense. If it's a little confusing now, keep pushing, it might make more sense for you towards the end.
@joannaw "The only" is a sufficient indicator; "only" and "only if" are necessary indicators. Question 3 states "the only oral myths..." means that oral myths will be the sufficient indicator.
@SimonNavarrete Both work if they get you the right answer. But the comparison is saying pandas are more genetically similar to bears, than pandas are to raccoons. Not if raccoons are closer to bears or if pandas are closer to bears.
With the information in this question, there is no reason to assume that a raccoon is not more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a bear. All we know is that a panda is more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a raccoon.
@Sameer_Ahamad
I am guessing you mean what is the subject and predicate for the object clause since it is a clause.
My best bet is:
Subject: "It" a referential for "Library"
This would be a one subject two predicates situation...
Predicate [1]-
Verb: unable
Object: the rest w/ modifier
Predicate [2]-
Verb: displays
Object: the rest w/ modifiers
@Sameer_Ahamad Yes because it is only lacking support and the added statement would offer the missing support.
I took the September test and didn't feel much anxiety or stress while at the center. I did the following the week leading up to my test, not just the night before. Set yourself up for success starting today so you're maintaining the anxieties and stress now.
Prioritized sleep every night. I aimed for 8 hours but would never get less than 6.
Eating nutritious food. Unhealthy food the night before sets you up to be potentially groggy or bloated. A little ice cream or something isn't a problem but Domino's might not be the move. I tried to eat clean (but food I love) for a week leading up to the test and then ate Chinese right after.
Go outside. Fix your circadian rhythm. I went outside when I woke up and sat in the sun for a bit. I went on sunset walks or also just sat outside before it went down. Don't let your phone be the first thing you see in the morning.
Working out was big for me. This has always been my outlet. Yoga in your room counts if you cant go to a gym. Stretch your muscles, breathe deep, jump around, doesn't matter.
Live your life!! Don't let the thought of this test consume you. I know it's so hard. But I promise you life does not end or start with depending on your LSAT score. Hang out with your friends this week. Do your hobby. Watch a new movie.
If it helps do a drill? I did a 5 question drill once a day leading up. It made me feel like I was keeping everything fresh, but didn't force me to sit at the computer for an hour freaking out about the LSAT. I did the questions, reviewed what I go wrong, and then played Tetris or something.
The most important thing to me was how I spoke to myself. BIIGGGG on "I'm trying to remind myself..." keep doing that. PLEASE. These forums are unrealistic for a lot of people and may only increase your stress. This test is as scary as you make it.