I applied late so I am still actually waiting on a few schools, but as of right now it's a toss up between Wash u, Michigan, Texas, and Georgetown.

Yaay!!! Thank you!

So how did everyone do?

While I'm disappointed a bit that I just missed getting top 1% because I know I'm capable of it, I'm very happy with my score!

I'm thinking I did exactly like I thought after the test. LG -4/-6??, RC -0/-1, LR -0/-2, LR -1/-3. It fits my score.

FINALLY finished with the LSAT!!! WOOHOO

I agree with bro, you get pretty good at knowing when you have the right choice with no need to read the others v. When you have the 'right' choice, but still want to at least skim the other four. Once you get comfortable with that then it's it's easy to know which is which.

Edit: I'd also say, though, if you practice by skipping answer choices on ones you know, make sure to still do that on the actual test. I got burned by that on dec. test, figured since it was the real test I had to check every answer choice and think about them on every question and really messed up my timing.

URM with a 173/3.45?

My guess is you are a shoe-in at any school you want.

I actually have no idea, wouldn't want to find out though lol. Might send you to sleep with the fishes.

Oh, I think we had 102 questions? Anyone else more certain?

Congratulations!!

Lol, I just checked mine too, and that's the quickest gray day turn around I've ever seen :p It says my score email date was 2/29/16 apparently.

And Puiniha, read above, it's answered here.

And on a side note, what are you all predicting as far as your scores? If the experimental LG had been real for me I'd be predicting a 174-177 from how I felt, but alas it wasn't, so I really have no idea. I'm hoping I only did badly enough to warrant a low 170's, but could definitely see it dipping into high 160's. That's just my gut feeling though, it takes for granted that I did as well in the RC and LR's as I felt I did. I feel like I managed LG -4/-6??, RC -0/-1, LR -0/-2, LR -1/-3. So Here's to hoping.

Had that too, not sure which of two sections though.

If you consistently get to the last RC section with 5 minutes left I say you're spending to much time on previous sections and work on that.

BUT, if you do arrive with only 5 minutes left I suggest reading about and learning how to skim. Effective skimming is an important skill. Read the first and last sentence of each paragraph and learn how to skim the middles to get what you need. Skimming a RC quickly in a minute to a minute and a half, the spending the last 4 to 3 and a half minutes answering its questions as best as you can is the best case scenario I would think.

Thanks pacifico

Yeah, until we hear more about what we are allowed to say it's best to be vague. The water on the moon is 100% experimental. :)

Right (premises) move right.

Wrong (premises), everything left is wrong.

What this means if is something is right everything to the right of it has to be right. Right here means it matches your chain. A not x, for example, would be right by being not x.

If something is wrong, everything to the left (everything left) is also wrong. Meaning it all has to be reversed. (Not x becomes x, y becomes not y)

Remember the topic of any game from your lg? I did really really well on one lg section, and the other one was.... let's just say it could go either way lol.... It was my first section and I wasn't locked in at all.

Also do you remember your rc? I can definitely tell you which was real I remember it perfectly. Pretty sure I got -0/-1 on it.

I just use OLAR , or left, and right. Makes it super easy for me at least to remember which splits. I mean it really does make common sense if you think about.it, but the little anagram really helps for quick changes in LGs.

To do demorgans I just reverse the sufficient and necessary (including and/or) then apply the rule.

I'm one of those who is guilty of not really BRing. Which probably explains the chart.

Thanks for the responses you two.

Yes looking at it a lot more closely in conjunction with which question types I have historically been missing has led me to find some possible errors. I have gotten some question type packets and am drilling those to try to correct this.

Also that is true Ron, I definitely need to get that down to a reliable -0/-2 and then yes I could almost guarantee myself at least a 170.

Thanks for the reply runiggyrun!

The title does say PTB.S1.Q17? At least it does for me.

Yeah, well I know for sure that B, C, and D are incorrect. I guess I should have eliminated E, because there is just a little bit of leeway there and gone with A as a process of elimination, but still, just a weird LR.

What you have to ask yourself in this question is how the astronomer is claiming that the stars, from his hypothesis, could resolve the conflict - or, what would make them different from the stars in the earlier estimates?

What is missing is a way for his explanation to make the stars younger. The two differences he states are that they are 1) farther away, and 2) must thus be much brighter. So which answer choice ties one of these two differences to the stars being younger?

C - The brighter a star is, the younger it is. - Thus if they must be much brighter than previously thought, and a much brighter star is much younger, then his explanation dissolves the discrepancy.

-- That's how I got the answer anyways

Only one school I applied to required that you fill in that blank lol. So I listed a few of their competitors. I left all others blank like Pacifico.