# Tag Archive: LSAT Recap

## Boo! LSAC Releases Some Spooky October 2015 LSAT Scores

This week, LSAC decided to up the late-October spookiness level by releasing scores for the October 2015 LSAT.

I’ll get right to the number that has all of you on the edge of your seats: The curve was -12, meaning that of the 101 scored questions on the test, you needed to get 89 correct for a 170. For a 160, you needed to get 73 or 74 questions correct. For the keenly interested, here’s the score conversion table.

## October LSAT: The Morning Cometh

Those taking the October 2015 LSAT have run the gauntlet and emerged on the other side, (hopefully) relatively unscathed. As post-LSAT-celebration hangovers subside, let’s delve into the chatter we’ve heard about the October 2015 LSAT. We’ve heard multiple reports that one of the Logical Reasoning sections was especially difficult, which is unusual – we often hear that there were a couple really tricky Logical Reasoning questions on the test, but it’s atypical to hear that an overall section was especially tough. In addition, we’ve heard rumors that there were no Main Point questions in Logical Reasoning, which doesn’t often happen – Main Point questions are far from the most common question type, but you can generally count on at least a few per test.

## October 2015 LSAT Instant Recap

Huzzah! You’re done with the October 2015 LSAT!

We know that you probably don’t ever want to think about the LSAT again. But before you begin your well-deserved celebrations, take a moment to tell us how it went.

## Lessons Learned From the June 2015 LSAT: Part II

Last week, Laura took a look at the Logic Games and Reading Comprehension sections of the June 2015 LSAT. This week, I am going to cover the Logical Reasoning sections of that test. I want to start by thanking Laura for covering logic games because…logic games are the worst. My personal hell would probably involve completing endless logic games while “It’s a Small World After All” plays on an endless loop (on a related note, I’m pretty sure anyone who enjoys logic games is some sort of demon).

With that aside, let’s take a look at the Logical Reasoning sections in the June 2015 LSAT. For the most part, the consensus seems to be that the Logical Reasoning sections were fairly straightforward. My own review of the test seems pretty consistent with that general sentiment. Nevertheless, there are a few questions worth highlighting from both of the sections.

## Lessons Learned from the June 2015 LSAT

Here’s a little-known fact: LSAT instructors get three Christmases per year, and last week was one of them. That’s right – Santa brought us a brand spanking new LSAT for us to savor! The June 2015 LSAT, hot off the presses.

The questions on this particular test that seemed to generate the most chatter were a certain Logic Game involving magazine features, and a Reading Comprehension passage about glass. Even if you didn’t take the June 2015 LSAT, there are some important lessons to be drawn from it, so let’s dive in.

Logic Games

There’s something surprisingly refreshing about sinking your teeth into a Logic Game you’ve never seen before, and the June 2015 LSAT did not disappoint on that front, with a rather unusual fourth game that had people talking after the test (just like last year!).

## June 2015 LSAT Scores Released

Yesterday was a big day in LSAT World, as the scores for the June 2015 LSAT were released late in the day.

Here’s how the curve broke down:
-10 for a 170
-26 for a 160
-44 for a 150

This means that you could’ve missed 10 questions and gotten a 170, and so on and so forth. Also of note is the fact that it was not possible to get a 179, 175, or a 122 on this exam.

## 2014 June LSAT Morning Cometh: Staying Positive, Patient

So after months of studying, practice tests and hard work, you’ve finally taken the 2014 June LSAT. This should be cause for celebration, but maybe you’re not in the most jovial mood. Maybe things didn’t go smoothly for you yesterday. Maybe you’re worried about your LSAT score. And then there was that damned Logic Game. (“What the flip was that, LSAC?!”)

We wouldn’t blame you if these thoughts were running through your mind today. But keep one thing in mind: you’re not the only one. Were you a bit shaky in section 1 yesterday because of the nerves? So were other people. Did you have a less-than-stellar proctoring experience? Chances are someone else’s was worse (read some of the comments from yesterday’s 2014 June LSAT Instant Recap!). And that brutal fourth Logic Game? Yep, join the club.

## 2014 June LSAT Instant Recap: What Did You Think?

First off, congratulations on completing the 2014 June LSAT.

Secondly…what did you think?! In the comments below, chime in with your feelings about the June LSAT. How difficult did you find the exam? Which section(s) tripped you up? Which section(s) did you dominate? How distracting was your LSAT proctor?

We want to hear.

Just remember: All comments must be approved. Any posts that violate LSAC’s rules will be trashed. No discussing specific question/answer content or pinpointing experimental sections, got it? If your comment isn’t approved, it’s probably because you broke the rules.

OK, here’s the intel we’ve collected about the 2014 June LSAT so far:

## Real LSATs Have Curves: A Look at the 2013 December LSAT

December LSAT scores were released yesterday (for most), and a lot of discussion has centered around the test’s forgiving LSAT curve. According to the 2013 December LSAT score conversion chart, you could miss 14 questions and nonetheless get a 170, or 3 questions for a perfect 180. LSAT scoring scales are pre-equated; in other words, your LSAT score is independent of the performance of the other people who took the LSAT that day. So a forgiving LSAT curve means that this LSAT had relatively hard questions.

And so I sat down early this morning to take the 2013 December LSAT and to try to figure out why the LSAT curve was so forgiving. Question difficulty can be hard to subjectively determine, and can vary a bit from person to person. I fully expected to have to dig deeply to figure out what made this particular test so hard for the average test taker.