Top Law Schools

YCrevolution wrote:This is a warning. This is likely your only warning; you are unlikely to receive any further warnings.

Please be advised that discussion or solicitation (including, but not limited to, PMs and online chatrooms) of any questions or answers from the June 2012 LSAT with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a permanent ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from even viewing the TLS forums. Permanent IP address bans for LSAT discussion have been issued in the past.

Examples have been included for your reference below. This is not an exhaustive list. It is not a defense to say that your overly-specific discussion of an LSAT question did not exactly mirror one of the examples - you will still be banned. Linking to other online materials/discussion of the LSAT questions is also prohibited.

Please note that you agreed not to discuss specific LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.

Analytical Reasoning Example wrote:1. Games were hard. Okay.
2. Yeah, on the second question for the second game, I wasn't sure if C was just on Tuesdays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Ban.
3. No, the order is ACDBBE. Ban.
4. What about Question Four? If C can't go on Tuesdays, then it has to be Wednesday right? Ban.
5. You guys are stupid. The answer to Question Four and Five is D. Ban.
6. No, the answers are CDAABE. Ban.
7. C'mon guys. How can you not know all of the answers? Ban.

Logical Reasoning Example wrote:1. I thought the LR sections weren't too difficult. Okay.
2. What answers did you all get for the coffee growers question? Ban.
3. I got A. Ban.
4. That's weird, I thought it was either B or D. Ban.
5. But it was a parallel reasoning problem. Ban.
6. Damn it, I knew I should have picked B. Ban.
7. Hold on guys, I think the mods might get upset if we keep this up. Never a good sign.
8. Let's trick them by disguising what we're saying. So, hypothetically, if I were a coffee grower..... Ban.
9. You would be displeased with government regulation of pesticides. Ban.
10. But not price controls. Ban.
11. Is that because, hypothetically, price controls would raise prices and revenue? Ban.
12. It's just a cost problem in general. If you were a coffee grower, the legal pesticides would, hypothetically, cost more. Ban.
13. Whoa, it's just like Question 13 from the second LR section in PT 39. Ban.
14. Guys, maybe we should create a chatroom to discuss this. I started one: tinychat.com/letscheatontheLSAT Ban.
15. If you guys could PM me about this, that'd be great. Ban.

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

If you are in doubt as to whether your drafted post will run afoul of this warning, do not submit the post. You have been warned.

lhanvt13 wrote:LR RC LR LR LG here I think sofa (2nd LR) and science fiction (3rd) were real

skri65 wrote:

lhanvt13 wrote:LR RC LR LR LG here I think sofa (2nd LR) and science fiction (3rd) were real

any basis for this?

square_peg wrote:My exam was RC-LR-RC-LG-LR.

Ugh...at least the two reading sections weren't back-to-back. That would've killed me.

Ihanvt13 - I had both of those.

lhanvt13 wrote:

square_peg wrote:My exam was RC-LR-RC-LG-LR.

Ugh...at least the two reading sections weren't back-to-back. That would've killed me.

Ihanvt13 - I had both of those.

Oh good god 2RCs are scary

square_peg wrote:

lhanvt13 wrote:

square_peg wrote:My exam was RC-LR-RC-LG-LR.

Ugh...at least the two reading sections weren't back-to-back. That would've killed me.

Ihanvt13 - I had both of those.

Oh good god 2RCs are scary

Yeah, I wasted the first three minutes of the second one freaking out about how I had two RC sections. I hope that one was experimental. XD

princessofpower wrote:I had LR-RC-LR-LR-LG too. I thought the 2nd LR was the experimental one

lhanvt13 wrote:

skri65 wrote:

lhanvt13 wrote:LR RC LR LR LG here I think sofa (2nd LR) and science fiction (3rd) were real

any basis for this?

Friend had 2 LR of which each contained these

Eberry wrote:

lhanvt13 wrote:

skri65 wrote:

lhanvt13 wrote:LR RC LR LR LG here I think sofa (2nd LR) and science fiction (3rd) were real

any basis for this?

Friend had 2 LR of which each contained these

I hope to sweet baby Jesus that you are right.


Someone verify this. Now.

abdistotle wrote:If the 26 q lr 1 was experimental and the two 25q ones after it counted I may be able to keep the tears from flowing quite so rapidly jk but lr 1 - exp yes ?