@ said:

I think you missed my point that the ratio of high scores to applicants only gives you half the equation. Not everyone who takes the test and scores high applies.

If 1,000 people in an average year (this is only an example number) score 175 and only 50% apply that year, with the rest deciding not to apply at all or to wait but this year there were 1500 high scorers, of which 90% apply and another 50% of those who did not apply the last two years but scored well apply, you're going to have numbers that seem like a huge percentage of people scored highly in a given year. In this case, 50% of 1000 ( 500 each of two years) plus 90% of 1500 this year. That adds up to, in this hypothetical, 2350 people with high scores applying, or 470% of normal. That's an extreme example, I would guess more than 50% of high scorers apply each year, and 175+ scores obviously aren't up 470%, but it makes my point clearly. We don't have the information to claim there is a different curve or ratio this year at all.

I will say that math dictates a greater tendency towards individual swings with fewer questions that may throw the curve off small amount, but assuming the highly skilled, highly experienced people at LSAC who's whole ability to exist is based on charging us for a successful, objective assessment on a given curve have decided to throw that mission out the window completely is hardly logically in their interests and humans and their organizations usually try to pursue their best interests.

This makes a lot of sense to me. So perhaps a lot of people were sitting on their high scores due to the pandemic, and unleashing mass applications (re-applications) this year. Of course these are all speculations with very little practical application (no pun intended!), but I am quite satisfied reading this explanation! Thanks!

Thanks for sharing this! Will try!

I actually disagree with JY's explanation here.

I drew the argument out as

P1: Gov Policy--> Increased CONSUMER demand

P2: Increased DEMAND [key point, notice they didn't say CONSUMER here] --> Increased gas price

C: Gov. responsible for increased gas price

---

The missing link here is to connect CONSUMER demand with DEMAND [presumably with CONSUMER demand being a subset of ALL demand].

If the Gov. cannot be responsible for an INDIRECT link [ie, the impact of CONSUMER demand on ALL demand and then ALL demand on prices] then it short circuits the whole argument.

I personally (respectfully) disagree that if the P2 said increased CONSUMER demand, it wouldn't be a valid argument and therefore a direct responsibility of the Gov. What makes it indirect is the lack of connection between CONSUMER demand and ALL demand. There could be all types of demand such as COMMERCIAL demand, INDUSTRIAL demand, that have a way bigger impact on the price, to the point where CONSUMER becomes a unnoticeable blip. In that case the Gov cannot be directly responsible for a price increase of all gas when their policy only impacted the CONSUMER segment.

I believe my explanation here better explains AC A than JY's explanation (props to him though for answering thousands of LSAT Q's and massively helping us all out). This also better explains why AC C is wrong. Even if CONSUMER DEMAND directly increases the gas price, this still does not resolve the issue with the missing connection in the original argument. The original argument is that ALL demand increases the price. Thus this AC falls into irrelevancy.

---

This is my conclusion after I flagged this question, missed it in timed conditions, then proceeded to miss it in blind review (by sticking with my original answer D). And then to miss it again in review of the blind review miss LOL (by going with AC C).

@ said:

Hola all I'm Mark I got a 169 in October and had around 20 apps ready to fire away as soon as I got my test results back. I'd like to share my results so far as well as some waitlist management advice. I've been obsessing about getting off the waitlist and have done a ludicrous amount of research (research sounds better than obsession).

I am what the Dean of admissions at Yale called a "super soft" aka military veteran and my ugpa was 3.42 which is notably low for t14.

Accepted with scholarship: Uga, Emory, Notre Dame

Denied: Harvard, Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley

Waitlist: UCLA, Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn, Michigan

My top choice is Northwestern and I'm doing everything in my control to get off their waitlist. Ultimately it will come down to how their class looks after their first and second deposit deadlines and what they class needs in terms of student demographic composition, and what the school's/Dean's goals are for that class (based on interviews I've listened to from Deans admissions officers etc).

Here is my waitlist advice I've gleaned from Harvard and Yale Deans, Michigan ad com officers, Harvard as com person, Michigan person, + my personal interactions with adcom.

Waitlist: do whatever the school asks in their waitlist email. Every 3-4 weeks and especially just after/before their deposit deadline write a letter of continued interest loci. You can print and handsign then upload as a PDF. Some schools don't care about loci format others may. In loci you can specify certain clinics, work programs, professors, courses that you're interested in. It really looks good if those are linked to a topic you expressed interest in in a PS or resume. Show how you love the city / want to live in the school's area. If you have a specific reason you like the school mention it. If it's your #1 pick and you would attend no matter what, say so. Be careful mentioning other competing offers - comes off as threat.

That's not exhaustive but it's a pretty good start. Best of luck!

I read somewhere that you also want to give them new information in your LOCI. Like "since my application, I have [received some award/retaken the lsat with a higher score/been in some relevant internship/etc]."

With all these seemingly different versions of sections floating around, how in the world do they come up with the scaled score that pieces them all together fairly???

I always appreciate JY's videos.

That said, I think a much better, simpler, and easier to understand explanation for why B is wrong (note: I originally chose "B") is that it says road maintenance is PRIMARILY funded by local sales tax.

I personally disagree with JY that "deicing roads" does not fall under "road maintenance." The more simple explanation here is that we don't know if THIS PARTICULAR POLICY CHANGE will be funded by LOCAL SALES TAX.

Road maintenance is simply funded PRIMARILY by sales tax--not TOTALLY by sales tax--therefore it leaves plenty of room to destroy this AC by thinking, wait, what if this particular policy is funded by the Salt Association of Centerburgh which is a filthy rich association comprised solely of super wealthy/elite Salt Business Owners. (Or literally ANY other funding source that doesn't affect low income people, which would completely nullify this answer.)

Since we have ZERO factual evidence on how this particular policy will be funded, it is nullified by the much stronger AC D. (I was waffling between B and D originally.) Doesn't this totally make much more sense than just assuming "deicing" is not included in "road maintenance"?!?!!

@ said:

@ said:

More high score applications does not mean more people getting a certain score on a given LSAT. Think of it like an LR problem you're trying to solve. What assumptions are you making?

One assumption is that everyone that takes the LSAT and scores well applies to law school that year. Another is that they only take the test once.

I can't say if the curve has been relaxed, but it would defeat the whole point of the LSAT if they did it more than a little. It's an assessment written by very smart assessors. They create it very deliberately to differentiate between people and relaxing the curve too much would make it utterly worthless.

I'm really disagree with you here. The previous poster got this data directly from LSAC. The data is headered: "Applicants' LSAT Scores."

The data reads:

"Highest LSAT:" and the jump was from 711 applicants last year to 1,420 applicants this year for the 175+ range, roughly double or in percentage terms, 99.7%

"Total" applicants only jumped 18%. Therefore, conclusively there is a much higher ratio (in addition to a much higher total number) of 175+ applicants this year, compared to last year. Meaning, the curve was relaxed significantly.

(Another explanation could be that there were many test-takers with the exact same number of missed questions. Similar to a tie-breaker in sports. Let's say there were 20 swimmers with a 50.0005 second race result. Suddenly there are 20 first-place winners, since they only measure down to that decimal. Perhaps this is what happened? With less questions overall, more people were likely to fall into the exact same number for raw scores?)

@ said:

Not everyone who takes the test necessarily applies to law school.

@ said:

@ said:

As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%.

Highest LSAT Last Year Current Year Percent Change

( 140 1,232 1,400 13.6%

140-144 2,323 2,458 5.8%

145-149 4,733 4,876 3.0%

150-154 7,335 7,792 6.2%

155-159 8,022 9,090 13.3%

160-164 6,920 8,675 25.4%

165-169 5,300 6,690 26.2%

170-174 2,637 4,042 53.3%

175-180 711 1,420 99.7%(/p)

According to Justin Kane this is the most competitive law school admissions cycle in 20+ years. How competitive? You could fill every single seat at the T50 with a 165+ scorer right now.

Stumbled onto this post, and at first glance, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

If the test is graded on a curve, then can law school applications be up ~30%, but 175+ scorers be up ~100%? How accurate is this data?

"Please note as defined in this report, an applicant is a candidate who submits one or more applications for any academic term."

This is the data that LSAC reported on.... So those people who took the test and didn't apply were not counted.

@ said:

More high score applications does not mean more people getting a certain score on a given LSAT. Think of it like an LR problem you're trying to solve. What assumptions are you making?

One assumption is that everyone that takes the LSAT and scores well applies to law school that year. Another is that they only take the test once.

I can't say if the curve has been relaxed, but it would defeat the whole point of the LSAT if they did it more than a little. It's an assessment written by very smart assessors. They create it very deliberately to differentiate between people and relaxing the curve too much would make it utterly worthless.

I'm really disagree with you here. The previous poster got this data directly from LSAC. The data is headered: "Applicants' LSAT Scores."

The data reads:

"Highest LSAT:" and the jump was from 711 applicants last year to 1,420 applicants this year for the 175+ range, roughly double or in percentage terms, 99.7%

"Total" applicants only jumped 18%. Therefore, conclusively there is a much higher ratio (in addition to a much higher total number) of 175+ applicants this year, compared to last year. Meaning, the curve was relaxed significantly.

@ said:

@ said:

For what it's worth, I did this. (I didn't let them know I would withdraw other apps though; conversely, I implied I am applying to other comparable schools.)

Not sure yet how it will go....

May I ask how you did that? Did you email admissions or made a notation of it in your PS?

Both. I just tried to be as smooth as possible. I know doing so is a risk, however my application has various deficiencies so I felt I probably need to take some additional risks to have any potential hope to reap the reward. Also my personality tends to be more aggressive in this type of area, so I felt I was being authentic in attempting this approach. This strategy is not for the faint of heart or those who are more conservative on the risk-taking front.

@ said:

I feel this "high scoring bubble" will deflate since an experimental section is being added. But according to Spivey the medians of most schools will be increasing by a point or two for sure.

Well I think this all boils down to competition. Even if the medians increase for a season, they will all increase at a similar rate. They will also deflate at a similar rate later if the so called bubble pops. However, during those seasons where the medians increase, that would indicate there are more high scoring candidates for the schools to choose from. Which is where the limited number of seats would effectively crunch candidates. The other thought is with so many high scoring candidates, whether the schools can increase the number of seats offered. (Thus potentially increasing their income significantly as well.)

For what it's worth, I did this. (I didn't let them know I would withdraw other apps though; conversely, I implied I am applying to other comparable schools.)

Not sure yet how it will go....

Also, another question, how could it be possible that I scored in the 84th percentile with only a 162? According to my back of the envelope calculation, on average this cycle, a 162 should be closer to the 64th percentile. Would that just mean that the particular test I took was either more difficult or less competitive?

@ said:

This is LSAC https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummary.aspx?Format=PDF

Edit. As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%. (US Applications to ABA Law Schools by Region/State)

As compared to one year ago, current year applicants are up 21.1%. As compared to two years ago, current year applicants are up 20.3%. (Applicants from Region/State of Permanent Residence)

Wow. So I just calculated it out:

175+ last year = 1.8% of test takers

175+ this year = 3.0% of test takers

This calculation alone shows they significantly relaxed the curve. And this seems to be the case across the top score ranges.

@ said:

As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%.

Highest LSAT Last Year Current Year Percent Change

( 140 1,232 1,400 13.6%

140-144 2,323 2,458 5.8%

145-149 4,733 4,876 3.0%

150-154 7,335 7,792 6.2%

155-159 8,022 9,090 13.3%

160-164 6,920 8,675 25.4%

165-169 5,300 6,690 26.2%

170-174 2,637 4,042 53.3%

175-180 711 1,420 99.7%(/p)

According to Justin Kane this is the most competitive law school admissions cycle in 20+ years. How competitive? You could fill every single seat at the T50 with a 165+ scorer right now.

Stumbled onto this post, and at first glance, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

If the test is graded on a curve, then can law school applications be up ~30%, but 175+ scorers be up ~100%? How accurate is this data?

I think Q4 Answer B also plays on the terms "usually" and "unlikely." Since they "usually" dig along the fault lines, if there are no fault lines, it would be "unusual" (translation: "unlikely") to be helpful.

(Selected E using the exact logic JY presented.)

This cracked me up from the moment he brings up the Chocolate Covered analogy. Literally LOLing!

Anyone else finding this question eerily relevant here in January 2021?

Hi, I am in the same boat (if not a worse boat) then you, as in, I am even slower on the LG. So take my advice with a grain of salt. However, I will tell you what is helping me drastically speed up over the last few problem sets.

That would be, the concept of "recognizing the action." As you are writing out the rules, the "action" would be the place where rules are chained together, where rules trigger outcomes, basically the flex points or swivel points, if you will, around which the pieces are swung around.

Recognizing the place in the game with the most action has helped me speed up a lot because usually the majority (if not all) of the questions will hone in on that one focus zone. If you really mentally understand the "action," a lot of the answers can be visualized, instead of drawn out, saving precious time.

The "Which one of the following is an acceptable arrangement..." should typically be your fastest question, not your slowest. You just run down the rules one at a time, and each rule usually knocks out one answer choice.

Sometimes they throw you curveballs on this one, as in, you need inferences to figure it out, but it's designed for the most part to be very straightforward.

I'm in the Same Boat. Don't panic. What helped me so far is that I have a graph of my test results over time, and I clicked "trendline" for the graph (Google Docs), and the overall trend is up. Even though certain results are terrible here and there (even below the diagnostic) however the "trendline" is up. Sounds like it would be the same for you. Therefore, keep grinding. I would not take too much of a break since it's near test date (my personal approach). Keep grinding, real results will come from the process.

I want to encourage all of you. I had the same issue. (My friend had a similar issue with the October test for which the server crashed in Section 4 and he was given the opportunity for a free retake several days later.)

Because I knew this happened to my friend in Oct, I asked him what to do. He said call LSAC. Up to this point I was extremely frazzled. (The "unresponsive" popup hit me somewhere between 30 to 100+ times during Section 4.)

However LSAC was already aware of the issue. The rep promised me I am eligible for the retake later this month. I told her this was extremely stressful and she apologized deeply/kindly. I felt much better after that.

So I encourage anyone who is frazzled as I was to contact LSAC and discuss your options. They are well aware of the issue and I believe they can help you with some sort of resolution (although not ideal because of the stress and strain involved in every sitting, I personally will likely go the retake route).

Wow, thank you so much for all the thoughtful replies. This community is really supportive. I could only wish I didn't find it only a few days before my retake! (And can only hope that I don't need another retake after that, which possibly means waiting for another application cycle!)

To follow up on a few of the comments given, I think the "flat tire" I am encountering equates to basically being completely stumped on questions with no recourse. I can literally just be frozen by a question and have no idea where to go with it. So no matter how fast I want to go, there's no possible way, because I just have no idea what the next step would be. Figuring out the next steps takes precious minutes. This would be the most common/biggest challenge for me in the Logic Games.

Secondarily, in many games, my diagram comes out exactly the same as JY's. However, the application of the diagram may take quite a while.

Especially, I may take a while to understand what angle the question is coming from.

Additionally, I may miss a key (like very last) inference that actually unlocks the whole game.

Lastly, just diagramming alone can take up quite a bit of time for me, like 5 to 8+ minutes.

So these are some of the common issues.

What helped me most recently was going deep for several hours into PT 77 LG 3. Through that I put together a framework that hopefully will allow me never to get completely stuck with a "flat tire." Then it's more of a battle of accelerating the other processes.

For those who are able to finish all the games on a given section, do you feel like you are at or beyond your "top speed?" Like are you pushing the petal to the metal? Or do you get to a point where you are solving them within time while you are still just in cruise control?

Thank you for this clear explanation! And making me LOL when you say, "No Freaking Idea ?????" Haha.

For Q10, the answer still doesn't sit well with me. The question asks for the analogous REACTION, not the analogous SITUATION. The reaction referenced is embarrassment. Clearly AC D is the most "embarrassing" situation - the critics are basically found to be complete hypocrites. Heck, finding out the master chef is gone might not even be embarrassing at all! They might be more amazed than embarrassed: like, "Wow, that master chef sure trained his team well!" Like anyone who knows anything about restaurants knows that the underling chefs do all or virtually all of the work. The master chef is just concocting the recipes and teaching the proper techniques, and might well not even be there most of the time??? Here's a link I googled in like 5 seconds to explain this phenomenon: https://www.mashed.com/112416/restaurants-celebrity-chefs-actually-cook-kitchen/ Like how many Wolfgang Puck restaurants are there? Would you be shocked or even more extreme, embarrassed if you found out he wasn't in the back of the kitchen? Now I understand that basically even though the word REACTION is in the question stem, we are actually looking for the analogous SITUATION. How in the world would I know this, especially under timed conditions? What am I missing here? #help

I applied recently and am still awaiting responses. So please take my suggestion with a grain of salt.

Reading your post, my thought is if I were you, I would tell them your story and try to negotiate. What I would do is use what you said above, like take almost take this exact forum post (minus the LSAT part) and tell them and see what they say.

Like say, basically, "You are my first choice regional school, and I am really grateful for your scholarship offer, and yet I am considering to apply again next year instead of accepting this scholarship because I think I can hit your mark to get even a 100% scholarship, which I actually need because of XYZ reasons. Alternatively, if there is any room that you could offer at least (xyz number like 90%) scholarship, that would help me a lot and that would move the needle for me and I would go ahead and accept your offer.

That's what I would probably try. Worst they say no, I seriously doubt they would pull the 50% offer. At best they give you 100%. I would think it's possible they give you something in the middle. Or they stand firmly on their initial offer, in which case you have that clear info as the basis of your decision.