@7sagestudentservices sorry--I'm still braindead. It was from LG.

I can confirm that the french/russian language question was real

@jennilynn89537 I am also in the same boat. I just turned 27 and never planned to delay this long, all in the name of LSAT.

And are there other study groups that meet during the evenings?

How long does each call typically run?

1. For those schools that ask you to explain why you've taken the LSAT multiple times, what is an appropriate way to respond? Can you be honest and say that you were really underprepared the first (couple) time(s) and felt that you could perform better by practicing and taking it again? Or must you have a more concrete reason (e.g. you were sick during a take, etc.)

2. How specific can I get in my personal statement regarding my prospective field of law? I am a relatively more experienced applicant, having been out of school for a few years, and through my other work/grad school experiences I've been able to narrow down my interest to a specific field of law. The issue is this: while I know it is a good thing in general to show some kind of contextual interest in law and/or vision of what your future professional practice might look like, I worry that from the perspective of admissions professionals---who might often see lots of applicants express their interest in more noble causes like human rights or children's advocacy, only to later on graduate and practice in big, white shoe firms and go on to specialize in more transactional, lucrative areas of the law---this might come off as naive. Is it okay to express strong commitment to one, very specific field of law, or is it better to soften that language in the personal statement?

Thanks for answering questions!

@tjphil239 Haven't waded through all the comments yet. But do any September takers feel this was substantially easier. That is my immediate takeaway

I think it was reasonable, with the exception of LG, which I though was relatively just as bad as september (PT 79). maybe worse.

@byungjoopark90601

@5259

do you remember which section # those were in? (If you are allowed to discuss about section #)

I don't, because I only had 2 LR sections, so I know that these were experimental by deduction.

I believe these LR questions were experimental:

-Touching Something Blue and Red

-What Year a Book was Written based on it Asking Where He Was

so I take it that the RC passage on human/animal evolution and environmental conditions was experimental?

@7sagestudentservices

@steve898

said:

Also, a question about male birds using something that's dangerous to baby birds to attract female birds, i think it was a strengthen question ....

Does that one fit with the "Birds and their nests" question?

Yes, same question.

Can anyone confirm whether or not this RC passagewas real?

-Francis Fukuyama/The End of History

I can confirm that the following LR questions were real:

-Leopard Magpie

-18th-Century Church Organ

-Iguanas on an Island

-Birds and Their Nests

Does anyone else get the feeling that the LSAT writers are starting to get unhinged on the games sections?

@jy-ping can you please post an updated version of this for folks taking the December test this weekend? Would be massively helpful!

Sorry, just saw the game explanation videos were already posted

@jy-ping what about the games from PT 79? this test had a particularly tricky game... did you already put a video explanation out for this one?

@tcheninventory708 I have this same problem, notably with games and reading comp. Although I absolutely hate going out of order, someone very recently suggested taking a quick glance at all the games first, and trying to do all the simpler format ones first (eg straight forward sequencing) and saving the more time consuming ones (eg double layer sequencing or hybrid games) for the end. I'm going to try this out tonight on my next PT to see if it actually makes a difference.

I mapped out the argument structure like this:

Premise: /P some B (there's some imperceptible material objects about which we have beliefs)

Conclusion: P –> /B (perception cannot be .... to have beliefs about that object)

I got the question correct but I'm just wondering, what do we call this type of flaw? Obviously, it's not valid. But is the type the flaw in the stimulus' argument that it mistakes a "some" quantifier relationship (/P some B) for an "all" conditional relationship (B→/P)? Or is it that it uses circular reasoning?

I had a similar thing happen to me. The place where I took my first LSAT was at a local college where I've done all my prep work and felt very comfortable (cue with warm and fuzzies) but then the universe decided it would be amusing to throw in a monkey wrench and NOT make that test center available for the upcoming June take, for which I am registered. So I desperately searched and searched online to get more info about my other options (not much there), and I eventually settled on UDM law school in Detroit (about an hour's drive away for me). I called every possible administrator in the test centers until I got the info I was looking for. Although this location is totally unfamiliar to me, and Detroit isn't exactly an inspiring locale, I did find peace in my selection after making the trip there to scope out the rooms and speak with administrators (who I've shamelessly spammed with phone calls) who've been proctoring the test for ages.

For that reason, I'd advise against traveling far (anything necessitating air travel) for an alternate test location--because it'll be that much more difficult for you to go scope it out in person. Also, traveling for your test could exposes you to a number of risks (though improbable) outside of your control that could very be to your detriment (like getting sick--planes can be viral cesspools, delayed/canceled flights, lost/stolen luggage, bad accommodations leading to poor rest, etc.)--all of that is not worth the risk in my opinion.

So I guess the moral of the story for me is this: if you can't be at your ideal test location, then the next best thing is to pick a center [within driving distance] only after doing your due diligence and it should DEFINITELY be a place that you've personally traveled to and scoped out for this very purpose. This will give you a level of familiarity with your test center on test day, and that should hopefully translate into some degree of confidence. :) Hope this helps.

JY, as someone who studied econ for years and years, your discussion of Kahnemann's research on endowment effect/loss aversion (especially the bit about the mug) made my day!! Thanks for the explanation.

yes please!

A quick and dirty (though not foolproof) way of doing this is by looking for key structural indicators in the stimulus (e.g. thus, therefore, so, hence, it follows that, establishes that, etc.) which point to the introduction of the argument's conclusion. The reason I say this isn't always foolproof though, is that sometimes these structural indicators are used to introduce subsidiary conclusions, which function to support the argument's main conclusion.

I think the best and truly easiest way is to actively read the stimulus for support. As you read, ask yourself how the stimulus is using each sentence--does the sentence/idea function to support some other idea? If so, then it is not the conclusion. The main conclusion of the argument is always a statement/idea that is supported by virtually everything else supplied in the stimulus, and it doesn't support any other idea.