@leahbeuk911 said:

It's not a stupid question. LSAC makes things as difficult as possible haha.

It's a little bit different for every school. For the 2 community colleges I had credit with, I emailed the registrar to ask about requesting transcripts and they sent me back a form to fill out for the request. I emailed that back along with a copy of the LSAC transcript request form and instructed them to print the form and include it with the transcript. No way to verify they did it, but LSAC has my transcripts so must have worked! haha.

Some schools have online systems for transcripts. These are the approved electronic transcript services for LSAC:

National Student Clearinghouse

Credentials Solutions

Scrip-Safe

If you go to order a transcript online and your school is using one of those services to do it, then it can be sent directly to LSAC. You may need to manually type in the address where it should be sent to, if that's an option.

If you are confused about how it works with your university, you could always call the registrar's office and ask someone. They should be able to help!

(And as a side note, make sure to get transcripts for any college you have credit from. I had a couple classes in high school that I received community college credit for, so I had to request one directly from that college.)

Thank you Leah! This is super helpful information. I guess I will just call or e-mail my college to figure out a way to send my transcripts to LSAC.

@studentservice said:

I honestly don't remember a single question from LR except the teddy bear one now LOL

same, I spent like 2 mins on that question and I had no idea what to pick lol

@matthewkobbygraham936 said:

This Lsat is the exact LSAT from February 2014. That LG was brutal

How did you know? I thought LSAC don't publish Feb tests; if they do they won't use it again

@mgzero2730 said:

You'll see that occasionally throughout practice tests. It means LSAC removed the question after administering the test.

During PTs when I'd see a question like that, I would remove some time from my clock.

But why would they do that? I am very curious....

I think that is the only "omitted" question I've seen so far. Have you seen anything else like that?

#help

Why couldn't I infer that there were fewer public gatherings JUST BECAUSE people heeded the campaigns and "avoided public spaces"? That's seems like a very very reasonable assumption to me.

A seemed okay, but I selected C after comparing two options. I thought C made more sense (even if A is true we could still argue that the food-borne illness decreased for other reasons).

@davidlee0221291 @davidlee0221291 @paulmvbenthem537 @kimht90675

Thanks guys! What you said was actually what I supposed. I found later test harder probably because I am struggling with conditional logic and the valid and invalid argument forms involving "some". I am actually really good at (verbal) conditional logic when I am not required to use lawgic, but if I had to draw a diagram I often confuse myself and take a very long time to figure out what is going on.

I just did PT5 today and I found it to be the hardest LR sections that I have ever done. I missed a total of 9 LR questions (and I only missed 1 in PT4 and 2 in PT6), so I think I should really reestimate the difficulty of earlier LRs haha

@davidlee0221291 said:

I find older pts easier for lr , harder for games , easier for rc .. I’ve also seen a lot of people saying this on the forum. I wouldn’t say it’s substantial but to me personally I do feel there is a difference (as for exactly how much between those sets I can’t comment on that) try a newer pt and see how you score .

Thanks! I guess I will try pt 70s tomorrow to see how I do.

Hey, we are definitely on the same boat.

I am taking my first test in July, and I am aiming for a 170. I now have -0/-2 on LG, -4/-7 on LR, and -6/-7 on RC.

I need to improve my LR to -2/-3 in order to get a 170 and I have no other options. I am already getting prefect scores on LGs and I find RC even harder to improve, so I would have to spend my time studying LR.

#help

I have a question for C.

C states "a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits"

Why can't I negate it as "a law might serve a useful purpose even if it does not deter the kind of behavior it prohibits"?

If I do this, I think C would be correct, isn't it?

#help

I really don't understand. How can we conclude from the information given in stimulus that "the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's having caused the second"????? I think this is just insane.

I am well-aware of the differences between correlation and causation. But just like JY said there are so many possibilities that might give rise to such a relationship. The stimulus NEVER suggested that the first thing might have caused the second; it only suggested that there is a relationship!

Yes, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the first thing (high income) has caused the second (owning a laptop), but the evidence given in stimulus never implied that this is correct. If it doesn't mention "the evidence given is consistent" then I think we have to make an assumption before choosing it, but it is still ok. However, "the evidence given is consistent" part just makes C so wrong.

The only thing that we can conclude from the stimulus is that there is a correlation between these two things, but we can't conclude that any one of them has caused the other.

If C says "ignore the possibility that first thing might have caused the second" it would just be so much more convincing. This is really one of the most terrible LR questions I have ever seen in terms of wording. I hope they don't make questions like this any more in modern LSAT.

The lawgic diagram presented in the video is way too complicated. I have a much easier way to visualize this question:

Since this is an "or" relationship, just think about 3 possible worlds:

F S

1. U U (both unpopular)

2. P U (popular among students but not faculty)

3. U P (popular among faculty but not students)

E implies world 3 only, and that implies that the policy is unpopular with the students, and this is why we should adopt a new policy (as stated in the stimulus).

Hope it helps!

I found B quite problematic because I just don't think "meteorite craters" = "craters" -- is this a necessary (and appropriate) assumption to make? Did anyone else miss this question for this reason or is it just me?

I initially dismissed B on the basis of its strong word choice. Is it really legitimate to conclude from the question stem that farming problems should be viewed in "ALL" their complexity? I think "many" would make more sense.

I do see ACDE as waaaaay off track, and by eliminating them I actually got this question right, but I just don't think "ALL" makes sense to me here. Could anyone please justify the use of "ALL" for me here in this case?

#help (Added by Admin)

I have to say that this is by far the most unconvincing LR question that I have ever seen on LSAT.

To be honest, I don't think A weakens the question stem AT ALL because despite that the question stem did mention that herbs should ALWAYS be prescribed as medicine, it never explicitly eliminated other medicines as alternatives. That is to say, the doctors could ALWAYS prescribe herbs as remedies while also prescribing other medicines to their patients. So why does "more effective conventional medicines" have to do with weakening the argument in question stem whatsoever?

I also don't think BCDE are perfect choices. I left this question blank even after my first BR, and I am still not convinced after watching this video. :/

#help (Added by Admin)

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I just realized that the question was asking assignment to boat 2, not both 2 and 1. This is such a stupid question can't believe I got stuck with it lol

@studentservice @jhaldy10325 @jhaldy10325 @estoutenburg25267

Hey guys! Thanks for your comments. I actually prefer hard copies over digital version, but if all of you guys recommend ultimate+ I guess I will just go for it. Could I organize the questions into drills and print them out as paper copies if I purchase ultimate+?

@wenjuanxu111 said:

Each LSAT has a different score curve based on the difficulty of a test. An "easy" LSAT means you can only miss say -9 to get a 170, a "difficult" test you can miss -13 to get the same score of a 170. The LSAC does this in order to account for variability in each test.

That being said after taking a few tests you'll find that you fall into a particular score range fairly consistently. The LSAT is a master at keeping us right where we are. For instance the scale might change but let's say you score 160 on the first "easy" test, you'll probably score around 160 again on the "difficult" test.

Sometimes in order to produce their scales they cut out higher end scores all together. This means that the 177 you were talking about could not be achieved on that particular test.

Does this clear it up at all?

Yes!!!! You've made everything crystal clear. Thank you for the clarification!!!

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

@pcainti665 said:

@ohnoeshalpme804

Hey! I am back as promised and I hope you are still here with us. May I ask you some questions regarding the test-prep strategy? It would be super helpful if you as a 180 genius could share your experience with me!

I can see that you are inherently good at RC due to your innate skill sets (so jealous man!), but you also mentioned that time management would be the key to crack RC. I totally agree with you as I am convinced that RC is actually ALL ABOUT time management; LSAT is not difficult per se but the stirct time limit has made it beyond terrifying. What do you think will be an effective way to manage our time when working on RC? I haven't gone over the core curriculum yet (I will soon by the next week), so you don't have to answer this if it has already been mentioned in the lecture. In addition, do you usually take notes when reading the passage, and would you have time to go back and review the details when you are answering the questions?

Here is what I would do: I normally spend 1.5-2 min on each passage and I almost NEVER go back to confirm the details when reviewing the questions. I am not a suuuuper fast reader but I do have pretty good memory, so what I have been doing is that I would just memorize everything after I finished reading for the first time. However, I find that I will keep missing the detail-related questions (actually those are pretty much the ONLY type of questions that I miss in RC! I never miss any main idea or comparsion questions so far with my 5 PTs taken) for failing to recall every detail. But if I ever go back to check my answer, I will run out of time (2-3 mins for each passage, which is totally unaffordable). What do you think I should do with this? Should I try to improve my memory, or should I work on improving my detail-searching skill and speed?

As I've metioned, I would always understand (almost immediately) why I lose points on my missed questions during my reviewal process as soon as I see the correct answer. I think the only reason that I missed them might be the lack of time (I don't have time to think it over during the test). In this case, what would you recommend me to do other than keep praticing with the PTs? Should I do blind review only instead of checking the answer keys immediately after taking a PT?

Thank you for sharing! (3(/p)

On reading comprehension, I never took notes, but definitely did return to the text during detailed oriented questions. I sort of used my reading speed as a crutch. I didn't necessarily have the structure exactly memorized so often wasted time scanning through to find the right information.

I think slower readers often benefit from a more memory focussed method where they carefully memorize the structure of the passage on their first read through. This enables them to go right to the correct portion when consulting the text for a specific question. However, it's impossible or nearly impossible to memorize everything so you want to try to focus on memorizing the structure and how each paragraph and maybe even sentences works together rather than the content within them. I used this technique a little(it may be called the 7sage memory method?) to try to save time if I was running behind, but never wrote out my summaries the way some do.

Blind review is indispensable. If you are not blind reviewing you are giving a lot up. There are likely several correct methods of reasoning to get to the right answer on every question. The only way to know if one is right is if it regularly predicts the correct answer.

What you are doing if you don't blind review is starting with the answer and constructing a reason that explains it. But you don't have a good way to find out if that reason is right. You could consult an explanation, but it might explain it differently than you thought it through. That doesn't tell you that you are wrong. There could be two or more right ways to get to the answer. But it doesn't tell you that you are right. You could ask someone, but you shouldn't have to do that for every question you miss.

The only way to test whether your reasoning is sound is to examine the question without knowing the correct answer or any of the incorrect answers and build an explanation for why the answer is whatever it is. Then when you check, you know that most likely if you get it right it is because your reasoning is right. You could get it right by accident, but hopefully if that happens a future PT uncovers your misunderstanding. If you after blind review get an answer wrong, you know your reasoning was fundamentally flawed and can confront it.

It is sort of like the scientific method. You can't make your hypothesis after the results. You thoroughly study the evidence, make your hypothesis, test it with your results, and then come to the conclusion that your hypothesis was either right or wrong. If you rush through the considering the evidence and making the hypothesis part(by only doing it timed), it isn't scientific, and it is far less likely that we take away the right conclusion.

Now of course you do have to get good at making your guesses quickly for the actual test by practicing timed, but there is no reason not to improve on that reasoning in a thorough blind review.

I too didn't blind review when I was first PTing, but that was a mistake.

TLDR

Try memorizing the structure in reading comp and rereading just the appropriate parts.

Definitely always blind review no matter how much you want to know your score right away. The agony is practice for the horrifying ly long wait for year real score.

Wow, thank you for your advices! I will definitely start blind reviewing my PTs now; Luckily I still have dozen of them to waste. Everyone has been telling me that bilnd review is very important, but I wasn't really convinced at first. Now it seems that it IS the most effective approach after all.

I did memorize the structure of the paragraphs when I was reading, and that is also why I am almost always able to answer the not detail related questions correctly. I never miss the main idea questions so far, not even for once. I do have the ability to effectively summarize everything about an article, but the detail-related questions seem to be my greastest weaknesses.

My plan is to make notes to help me promptly locate the details - I never waste my time on the sentences after "for example" when I was taking the GRE. I think I will do just the same for LSAT.