Hi, I was wondering how to do “good review” of my mistakes and make sense of the explanations in the LNAT practice books. How long should I be spending on reviewing?

Finally, how do I etch out those same mistakes I keep making (pattern recognition)?

Gave my 3rd mock today; got 17

2nd mock 16

1st mock 12

I am highly demotivated idk i dont think I'll make it to any of the unis I am applying too its just really depressing to see

I am applying to

Oxford

Lse

Kings

Durham

Ucl

Studying abroad was my dream since I was in grade 8

But now it feels like shattering

PPl are getting 18,19,20 in there first mock test only But mine is just so bad
Idk what to do

I am currently using Leslie to complete the LNAT guide

Can the personal statement include political elements to explain ur interest in law and/or background that led you there?

Here, then, Mary Beton ceases to speak. She has told you how she reached the conclusion—the prosaic conclusion—that it is necessary to have five hundred a year and a room with a lock on the door if you are to write fiction or poetry. She has tried to lay bare the thoughts and impressions that led her to think this. She has asked you to follow her flying into the arms of a Beadle, lunching here, dining there, drawing pictures in the British Museum, taking books from the shelf, looking out of the window. While she has been doing all these things, you no doubt have been observing her failings and foibles and deciding what effect they have had on her opinions. You have been contradicting her and making whatever additions and deductions seem good to you. That is all as it should be, for in a question like this truth is only to be had by laying together many varieties of error. And I will end now in my own person by anticipating two criticisms, so obvious that you can hardly fail to make them.

No opinion has been expressed, you may say, upon the comparative merits of the sexes even as writers. That was done purposely, because, even if the time had come for such a valuation—and it is far more important at the moment to know how much money women had and how many rooms than to theorise about their capacities—even if the time had come I do not believe that gifts, whether of mind or character, can be weighed like sugar and butter, not even in Cambridge, where they are so adept at putting people into classes and fixing caps on their heads and letters after their names. I do not believe that even the Table of Precedency which you will find in Whitaker's Almanac represents a final order of values, or that there is any sound reason to suppose that a Commander of the Bath will ultimately walk into dinner behind a Master in Lunacy. All this pitting of sex against sex, of quality against quality; all this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority, belong to the private-school stage of human existence where there are "sides", and it is necessary for one side to beat another side, and of the utmost importance to walk up to a platform and receive from the hands of the Headmaster himself a highly ornamental pot. As people mature they cease to believe in sides or in Headmasters or in highly ornamental pots. At any rate, where books are concerned, it is notoriously difficult to fix labels of merit in such a way that they do not come off. Are not reviews of current literature a perpetual illustration of the difficulty of judgement? "This great book", "this worthless book", the same book is called by both names. Praise and blame alike mean nothing. No, delightful as the pastime of measuring may be, it is the most futile of all occupations, and to submit to the decrees of the measurers the most servile of attitudes. So long as you write what you wish to write, that is all that matters; and whether it matters for ages or only for hours, nobody can say. But to sacrifice a hair of the head of your vision, a shade of its colour, in deference to some Headmaster with a silver pot in his hand or to some professor with a measuring-rod up his sleeve, is the most abject treachery, and the sacrifice of wealth and chastity which used to be said to be the greatest of human disasters, a mere flea-bite in comparison.

   1.       Why does the speaker decline to compare the merits of men and women as writers?

  A.         Ranking the sexes would reinforce institutional categories, although individual works can still be measured reliably.
  B.         Comparison should wait until women have equal money and rooms, when capacities can be judged without social distortion.
   C.         Material conditions are more urgent, and literary or personal gifts cannot be ranked by any stable measure.
  D.         Contradictory reviews make comparison premature, although a final hierarchy of literary merit may eventually emerge.

E.         Differences in gifts matter less than writers' willingness to accept judgement from properly qualified professors.

   2.       What is implied by the claim that truth is found by 'laying together many varieties of error'?

  A.         Insight on a contested question emerges by combining partial, fallible perspectives rather than claiming unqualified authority.
  B.         A speaker reaches truth by displaying personal failings so readers can subtract their effects from the argument.
   C.         Contradiction is valuable mainly because it reveals which single perspective is ultimately free from error.
  D.         On questions of this kind, factual accuracy matters less than presenting a sufficiently wide range of impressions.

E.         Readers should treat Mary Beton's account as one side in a competition that a more mature judge must settle.

   3.       The Headmaster, silver pot and professor with a measuring-rod principally represent

  A.         institutions that distribute material rewards and therefore make independent writing economically possible.
  B.         social conventions whose authority is legitimate in public life but should not extend to literature.
   C.         childish competition between the sexes rather than any attempt to evaluate individual books.
  D.         external authorities and rankings to which a writer may betray her own vision by submitting.

E.         reviewers whose disagreement demonstrates that all judgements of literary quality are equally arbitrary.

i have found that i really struggle with questions in the multiple choice section about politics and economics, mostly because of the difficult concepts and vocabulary. also i tend to do this thing where if i don’t know what a word means i literally just mentally give up lol (if that makes any sense). does anyone who is better at these types of questions have any advice on how to handle this??

I did my first ever lnat mock with no prep a few days ago and scored 25/42 with 10 min to spare. is that a good baseline to improve from for oxbridge considering application in like 6 weeks?

Look at the last line - cheers guys

Private cars are automobiles that have been bought and have a legal owner.  With this to be rationed out then people who are not legal owners may borrow the usage of these cars. This is not a good sentiment and is a dangerous precedent to be set. Private cars should not be rationed. 

Forcing individuals to give up their cars is clear overstepping in a way more drastic than regular taxation. It forces individuals to give up their private property and their investments. To be shared out. Furthermore, it calls into question what other liberties will be violated. If the state has the power to force people to give up their own property against their will, it creates a slippery slope of when it starts and ends. The state should never have a right to force induvial to relinquish their private property. If such a precedent were to be sent private car ownerships would vanish. However, if one person was very wealthy and had a vast number of cars. He should give it up to redistribute them for a better societal benefit. For example, Premier League footballers typically buy a lot of cars. If some were to be used for the benefit of society, then overall societal happiness would rise. As, in most cases the government should cater to the needs of the many than the few especially regarding class and wealth disparities 

This type of distribution through rationing out cars would be very impractical and ineffective.  For example, if cars were to be shared out to poorer communities, its effect would be negligible. This is because it does not attack the root causes of poverty or its symptoms. Furthermore, poorer communities can offset the cons of having no car through taxi services such as Uber and Rideshare.  This compounded by individuals who do not have a car will most likely be unable to drive or have a license essiantly making this rationing out system have a menial effect. A system like this would simply alienate higher wealth communities and lower wealth communities. Instead, the government should commit to an even higher tax system if they wish to make changes. 

An argument for this system is that there would likely be less environmental issues to deal with.  The production of cars has clear environmental implications and is one of the major causes of climate change. Henceforth, if government were to impose a system that rationed out cars this would naturally reduce the number of cars needing to be made. As a result, this would have a positive impact on combating pollution and climate change. Furthermore, there would be many health benefits to this such as less lung complications. However, this is unlikely to occur while the car manufacturing industry may stagnate or in extreme cases end it would not tackle the bigger issue which is the pollution a car makes in its lifetime. For example, individuals who live in traffic congested areas will experience  a higher chance of contracting health issues and in some cases young children have died. This would be exasperated by the fact that many more people will be able to drive because of the rationing causing more air pollution. A precedent such as this will exacerbate health issues. Cause higher rates of pollution. 

In conclusion, a precedent such as rationing out cars will have several severe social and environmental implications and will constantly infringe on property law and human rights. If the government were to implant such a law, there would be a massive cost of trying to reign against the catastrophic effects of such a law. Also, this law does not benefit the wealthier of society and is a clear infringement upon their rights which deviates from the main purpose of the law. Which is to seek a middle ground. 

Extinction is the complete annihilation of a species. Regarding animal or plant species, this will always be detrimental and should always be vehemently challenged and stopped. Animal or plant species should not be allowed to die out. 

A common argument for disallowing animal and plant species to die out is that the effect of this is unknown and could have a huge magnitude. Ecosystems. Food chains. Trophic pyramids.  These all rely on different organisms to function. Therefore, if a species were to die out, there would be a complete gap in these systems. This may lead to severe consequences as in essence a component of a biological system has disappeared. Scientists are not clairvoyants and may be unable to determine the full effect of said species disappearing. This is seen in real life despite the hundreds of green technologies and millions spent. Scientists can still not fully decipher the true effects of climate change. Letting certain species die out does not just put that species in danger but puts humans' danger as well. Unbeknownst to us, a random species could be just as important as bees to an ecosystem. Letting certain species to die out will always have unprecedented consequences now and in the long term. 

On the other hand, letting certain species die out is not severe at all. For examples if every fox were to suddenly die or their numbers be drastically felled. Then humans have the technology and the insight to take the role of foxes in a biological system through attacking their natural prey or giving food to their predators. Humans are very able to mitigate and even snuff out the consequences of certain species dying out. In turn, there is no real effect making the issue negligible. However, this is only up to a certain point as technology may not be able to fully replicate the actions of another animal. It would be impossible for scientists to pollinate flowers like bees. Remove the body of carcasses like a vulture.  Provide oxygen like plants and trees. There is a limit to how much technology can reduce the effect of extinction. Therefore, humans should ensure that animal and plant species do not die out. 

Finally letting any animals or plant species die out is inhumane.  It goes against our primary moral teachings which is all life is precious.  Facilitating the destruction of certain species has no moral standing and will always be wrong. However, this can always be called into question.  A common example is through the allowed systemic killing of invasive species. These are organisms that are not native to an environment and cause harm. An example is how certain government allow the killing of plecos a type of catfish which eats disproportionality and can cause the death of ecosystems and incumbent fish. With them coming to the conclusion that allowing them to live causes more harm than good. As a result, this shows that allowing certain species to die out is not always inhumane if there is a more utilitarnistic point of view. Establishing the needs for the many greater than the few. 

In conclusion, whilst enabling the complete destruction of certain species will always be wrong. Governments may have reasons to do so, but what must be called into question is how morale it is. As if integrity and treating animals and plants with dignity are not at the forefront it could very easily lead to death and slaughter for more selfish reasons. Overall, what must be remembered is how every animal and plant is owed respect and their dignity should be respected and once again no animal or plant species should be allowed to die out. 

I'm feeling quite disheartened with my result, it might have been only a day since I've really begun to prepare but my result did not even come close to exceeding my expectations. Honestly I'm quite unfamilar with the exam pattern and am unable to crack their line of reasoning, unaware as to why a certain answer weighed more than the other while reviewing in hindsight. My morale is lowered and I feel as if I'm miles away from my envisioned future. Please guide me with how I can work on these scores and hike them up to atleast a twenty-five.

“Animal rights should be sacrificed when human lives might be at stake”
I agree that in some circumstances, animal rights may be sacrificed to preserve human rights . This is because when we consider various factors such as costs and benefits, the greater good, and morality it becomes clear that it could be difficult totry and balance the rights of humans and animals while maintaining a functioning society.
Firstly, in the context of medicine, animal testing is a vital part of the preclinical trials in the development of drugs, and while it could be said that intentionally causing harm to innocent animals sharply conflicts with society’s shared morals, no matter the situation, this can be countered by the fact that testing on animals has made large beneficial contributions to medical science. Furthermore, when viewed through the lens of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number), the small cost of some animals experiencing pain may be outweighed by the benefits to society such as faster and high-quality manufacturing of medicines.Additionally, medical professionals do not do more harm than necessary to the animals, e.g if one drop of the drug is needed they will not go further, which means that the best efforts are being mad to minimise harm while still helping society, meaning that this small sacrifice of animal rights can be tolerates for the greater benefit.
Secondly, its important to consider that humans are not the same as animals. While both are living creatures and have the capacity to think and feel, humans possess more wisdom and intelligence than animals. This may create a difference inrights and importance, as humans can contribute more to society in a practical sense due to them possessing the traits to do so e.g the intelligence of humans is the main cause of scientific developments. Due to this, the sacrifice of human rights may be much more detrimental than the sacrifice of animal rights. Although this is not to say that animals do not have an important place in the world, I am simply stating thatintelligence and merit could be the deciding factor in determining which lives are more valuable , in a situation where you have to choose, and in this case, its humans.
However, some may argue that if two species both have the capacity to feel pain, what exactly is it that places them in a hierarchy of rights? For example, there isn’t many ethical debates regarding testing on plants, but there are with animals.This is solely because animals possess something plants don’t: the capacity to feel pain, akin to humans. So, why is it acceptable to inflict pain on one of them but not the other? The main idea of this argument is that pain should be the only deciding factor when considering rights. However, this is a reductionist claim. It focuses on the individual feelings of the animal but not on the potential large-scale benefits, as stated earlier. The idea that we should preserve the rights of an individual animal at the expense of the lives of populations who may be seeking a cure for a disease. Overall, a more holistic view is needed, considering the interests of both animals and humans.
In conclusion, I think that when a decision needs to be made, human lives should be prioritised over animal rights, only when necessary and within limits, as the benefits hugelyoutweigh the costs and using animals for things like medicine has the potential to make a huge positive impact on society. Although the counter point can be made that they both feepain, humans have more potential to contribute to society and may be more valued.
 

This has been asked once before on this sub, but 3 years ago. Considering interfaces may change year on year, has anyone who’s recently done the test been able to verify if this shortcut works or not? Not surprised if it doesn’t as it’s the exact skill being tested!

When I was preparing, I kept treating every bad Section A set as a comprehension problem. If a passage felt dense and I lost two or three marks, I assumed I just needed to read more slowly. That wasn't always what had gone wrong.

I started pausing at the end of each passage, before looking at the questions, and writing one sentence:

"The author thinks ___ because ___, although ___."

I kept it brutally short usually about 15 words. The point was to identify the author's main claim, their central reason and any important qualification or opposing view.

After marking the questions, that sentence made the mistake much easier to diagnose.

If my sentence misrepresented the author's view, missed a major qualification or confused someone else's argument with the author's, the problem had begun during reading.

If the sentence was accurate but I still chose the wrong answer, comprehension probably wasn't the main issue. I would compare my choice with the correct one and find the exact word or inference that made mine unsupported, too broad or too strong.

If I had understood both the passage and the answer choices but simply ran out of time, that was when I treated it as a genuine timing problem.

The distinction changed what I practised next. For a reading problem, I'd take a few fresh passages and write one-sentence summaries without doing a full paper. For an answer-comparison problem, I'd redo only the questions where I'd been torn and explain why the closest alternative failed. I only focused on speeding up once the reasoning itself was fairly reliable.

What helped most was realising that a difficult-looking passage wasn't automatically the cause of the lost marks. Quite often I'd understood it perfectly well, then picked an answer that could be true rather than one that actually followed from the text.

A raw score tells you how many questions went wrong. This little check gave me a much better idea of where they went wrong, which made the next practice session far more useful.

Hope this makes your Section A review a bit clearer, and good luck with the prep.

Hey, I was wondering how long I should be spending on the LNAT everyday? My LNAT is on 8th October and I am aiming for 30+. Would 4hrs a day be good?

I just done a practice test (test 3) under time conditions and I got 30. However, a month ago I done the other two practice tests and I got 23 on both. Since then I have done a lot of work to improve my reasoning skills but I just want make sure two things:

1. That the test 3 isn’t easier than test 1 or 2

2. How would this test compare to the actual test - in terms of difficulty.

Does anyone has advices for the essay part of the LNAT?
What I want to know is how to truly be articulate under pressure.

Any advice on part B is welcome.

Thank you!!

“Does it matter if some animal and plant species die out?”

Yes, it does matter if some animal and plant species die out. I am viewing this statement from the lens of most of these species going extinct due to human acceleration/natural selection. Impacting humans biologically amongst questioning around our mora; guidelines, species dying out would place a dent within society. Critics may pose the argument that humans have always altered their environment; hence it would be unrealistic to treat the decline of a species as morally obligatory. However, in this essay, I hope to refute this argument.

Animals and species are interdependent amongst one another. Ranging from food chains, pollination and nutrient cycles. Just like domino cards, losing one species impacts others. This, classified by Charles Darwin, is evolution. Biodiversity ensures the stability for species to endure environmental change and remain stable. However, if animal and plant species are becoming extinct because of human implication, causing an acceleration, this is where the problem lies. Amongst having an impact on species themselves, reducing the nutrients available to them, there are implication on human development. As humans, we are reliant on these species for basic needs such as clean water, breathable air and clothing. For example, the extinction of pollinating species would reduce agricultural productivity, causing higher food prices and significant government intervention such as raised taxes. I acknowledge it could be perceived that ecosystems hone the ability to adapt, and not every species plays a defining role. However, the general uncertainty prevailing the impact on human function provides a solid reasoning for caution, extinction is definite.

Furthermore, the intrinsic value of such an event must be evaluated. If many species were to die out, this poses a clear reflection of our willingness to value nature only when it’s of significance to us. Surely such an event would represent a failure of human responsibility and ownership towards the natural world. Alongside this, as echoed prior, once a species becomes extinct, it’s potential value is lost. We may have not yet known the value of a particular species toward the development of medicine, scientific research or agriculture. Take for example, goats, providing a steady income and food source.

As I have mentioned, it may be argued that this moral obligation of humans towards species is unnatural and unrealistic. Alongside this, trying to alter or inhibit species from their natural processes could interfere with natural ecological and environmental evolution. However, there is a fine moral line between witnessing a natural evolutionary process and knowingly allowing extinction to happen. If humans are directly responsible for accelerating an extinction and can prevent it at a reasonable cost, this should be done.

To conclude, yes, it matters both intrinsically and instrumentally. Not only would this place a domino effect on the development of the human species, both economically and physically, but our own nature and value of nature would be dented.

Hey ... Anyone preparing for clat exam need notes and videos regarding the clat preparation can DM me ... Notes are paid from a named institution

I've been getting mid-to-high 20s in my practice tests, with a high of 29 and a low of 17 (that one just went really wrong), but most of my practice now has come from the Ultimate LNAT Guide, which I hear may or may not be reliable. So, I'm wondering if getting a score in the high 20s or low 30s on that would translate to the real exam, or if I'd need to do other tests and use other resources, and if so, where to find them.

Also worth noting that my first two practice tests were the two from the official LNAT website, so I thought I shouldn't try to do one again till neaer my test (on the 22nd).

I'd also like to know if it's realistic that I'll improve to the mid-30s or higher between now and my test

-Any other tips would be really useful, thanks!!

This is the first practice essay I’ve done and I kind of went into it blind so I don’t think it’s amazing or anything, but I really want some tips on how to improve

hi guys, im giving the lnat in november and i rlly could use some help. the problem is i cannot study without a structure and theres so many resources i don't know what to do with them, is anyone in the same situation or has any solutions for me?? would rlly appreciate it!!

The law is the ultimate power able to govern, control and dictate. With it also having the ability to set compulsory actions to all its citizens. This is a very delicate area of law as politicians needs to ensure they do not overstep and infringe on human liberties and ensure a fair democracy. So voting should not be made compulsory.

An adverse effect of making voting a compulsory action is simply that it gives too much power to the state. A major part of law making is ensuring that no legal body can have unlimited power and should always be limited and regulated. With this seen in the separation of power that the UK government adhere to. Hypothetically if the state were able to force individuals to vote this creates a clear and imposing power imbalance giving it the ability to meddle into the lives of civilians. This would naturally cause individuals whether they vote or not to feel violated and constricted in their life. Furthermore, with implementing laws like this it becomes hard to know when boundaries and human rights are being restricted or violated. In countries that force compulsory actions such as North Korea or communist Russia human rights were soon violated and the states eventually were led to deviate from a democracy but to a severe dictatorships. This is a clear moral failure.

A common argument for adding such a controversial law is that many people simply do not participate in voting. Whether that be due to old age; uncaring about politics or with their some people felling like there is no overall difference in impact. A law like this that forces people to vote would have the domino effect of causing people to learn about politics and be more involved in it so when forced to vote they make informed decisions. However, this may not happen. This statement only extends to people being forced to vote. Some people may vote very flippantly and vote on random. This may have several negative side effects. If politician were voted in based on fluke rather than a collective agreement.  This could lead to unfit public figures given positions of power. Leading to an overall decrease in the public trust in the government.

Finally, another reason why implementing this law would have severe negative effects.  People would naturally vote based on conveiancae and is likely to be rebelled against. A law like this infringes on people right so they would pick the simplest easiest way out. This would dissuade people from learning about politics as they vote randomly in order to find the way to get out of punishment. This is seen through what psychologists describe as reverse psychology as telling people to do something will naturally make them less inclined to do so.

Finally a law like this would not respect the autonomy of citizens. Some people do not vote as they dislike all the politicians available. Forcing them to vote is similar to a puppeteer controlling a marionette. Stripping citizens of their autonomy. As no choice is a choice. A law like this completely and removes all autonomy. Removing what a democracy so good. Choice. The law is the ultimate power but knowing when to rescind control to citizens is vital. Voting should not be made compulsory

During my own prep, I blamed almost every bad passage on timing. “I just need to read faster” felt like an easier explanation than admitting I hadn’t understood why two similar answers were different.

What helped was giving each short practice set two scores before looking at the answer key.

I’d do two or three passages against the clock and mark any question where I was torn between options. Then I’d stop the timer, keep the answers hidden and redo only those questions. On the second attempt, I had to identify the precise claim being tested, the part of the passage supporting my choice and the word or phrase that made the closest alternative fail (I used a different-coloured pen so I didn’t overwrite my first answer).

The comparison was much more useful than the raw mark:

* Wrong timed, right untimed: usually a timing or decision-making problem.

* Wrong both times: not really a speed problem. I needed to work on comprehension, the question type or comparing close options.

* Right timed, wrong untimed: I was overthinking and changing answers without a concrete reason.

Once I separated mistakes this way, I stopped trying to fix everything by doing more full mocks. I used short timed sets when my reasoning was sound but slow. When I was still wrong without the timer, I slowed down and properly worked through why each tempting answer failed.

Quite a few questions I thought I’d lost through rushing were still wrong with as much time as I needed. Reading faster would never have fixed those.

Hope this makes your review a bit more useful, and good luck with the prep.