- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
They are slightly different in some ways, but the overall consensus is that they were easier. Now with intense study for the LSATs and access to resources that break the test down efficiently, they likely have had to adjust to make the problems less formulaic. It's all speculation, but it makes sense to me
@cherry641 said:
@nicholasleon96300 The second LR section is the section that will always be skipped.
Let me know if you have any further questions!
Thank you!
@cherry641 said:
@gurchitchatha526 said:
@cherry641 / @nicholasleon96300
I see! So for PT 1 to 89, the scoring system is counting both, so a more "realistic" score when taking PT 1 to 89 relative to how today operates would be either A. selecting the lower of the two LRs for safety, or B. flipping 50/50 between the two LRs. Thanks for clarifying!
You can also use our Modern LSAT Score Estimator which is based on having the same raw-to-scaled conversion table, but scored as though there was only one LR section (one half of the usual amount) with the raw score scaled up to account for the reduction in the number of questions. Because no one outside of LSAC knows how the scoring will actually be done, this is just an educated guess.
How does 7Sage decide which LR section to drop? Would it take the easier/more difficult section or is it completely random?
It is inconsistent - Powerscore has an explanation that makes slightly more sense
The video explanation didn't make much sense to me here - how I got to E was by seeing that contradiction between "sustained increase" and "short term." If this was to go on indefinitely, the human race would be in serious trouble.
My worry initially was that realistically, we're not going to be burning fossil fuels for millions of years (what seems to be meant by "not short term"), but that's outside info that doesn't have an impact.
Anyone can feel free to correct me if this is incorrect thinking, but that's at least how I got this answer
I've studied off and on for the LSATs for a while, but never seem to stick to it. I take a PT, get super excited about my score, then spent 2-3 weeks spending all my time focusing on it. Then around that 3-4 week mark, I start making excuses like "my brain just isn't in the right place" until I stop completely.
I don't want to do that anymore. That said, I've started working fulltime and have much less time to spend studying for the LSATs than I used to. I can force myself to study before work starts, yet I'm usually still waking up at this time and don't feel like my mind is all there. If I tell myself I'll study later when I'm more attentive, but I can't keep my focus on it later at night and can only spend half an hour or so on it. I'm taking ADHD meds but primarily for my work day, since I don't want to get fired.
My question is, is there a point to studying when tired? Is it better to spend more time in the morning when I'm not fully awake, or less time when I am but don't have 100% of my attention on it?
I know neither is ideal, but I want to actually stick to this and have it mean something rather than throwing my time away.
It's a different argument the author is poorly arguing against