> A history exam might ask a question like "When was the US Constitution ratified?" Suppose you pick answer "(a) 1776". Then you look at the answer key and you see that the correct answer was actually "(b) 1789".
Wasn't the constitution ratified in 1788?
toast0 · 1h ago
The Constitution was ratified by state's conventions in 1787, 1788, 1789, and 1790. The convention of the ninth state (New Hampshire) ratified on June 21, 1788.
However, the operation of the Constitution didn't commence until March 1789 [1] [2]. Prior to that commencement, government still operated under the Articles of Confederation. The question is poorly worded, if they're asking for when the federal government began operating under the Constitution; but it's also poorly worded if they're asking for when the ninth state ratified it.
That sums up roughly 95% of daily practice in US trials and appeals!
mdaniel · 29m ago
Heh, this is the thread I came to see on a submission about the LSAT on HN o/
ethan_smith · 11m ago
The Constitution was indeed ratified on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify it, though it didn't go into effect until March 4, 1789.
scarecrw · 1h ago
This looks fantastic! I work in test preparation myself (though not for the LSAT) and this ticks all the boxes for the best approaches. I also really appreciate it being direct and opinionated without the obnoxious tendency of a lot of guides to denigrate alternatives.
rayiner · 1h ago
This is great. My tip: don’t spend money on LSAT prep (unless you have no impulse control and can’t learn from a book). Just take practice tests, and when you get an answer wrong, carefully articulate exactly why each of the wrong answers was wrong and the right answer was correct. At least when I took it (17 years ago now) there was always a clearly right answer and three clearly wrong answers. I’ve never seen a single LSAT where that wasn’t the case. During the test you should be able to not only identify the correct answer, but articulate in your head why each other answer is clearly wrong.
piker · 16m ago
Absolutely correct.
almostgotcaught · 29m ago
the only secret to the LSAT is to grind practice tests. back in the day (~10 years ago) i torrented all the available tests (~70) and all the practice books. I did one of the books to learn the "tricks" and then just took all the tests. scored a 178 (and then never went to law school lol).
gowld · 13m ago
Did you track your progress across practice tests? Did you need 70 tests to reach 178 performance?
tzs · 1h ago
I was puzzled by the site only talking about two kinds of sections on the LSAT, so did some checking.
In 2024 they dropped the analytic reasoning section. Now it just tests logical reasoning and reading comprehension.
jmogly · 57m ago
Mixed on this — I personally struggled with logic games, being dyslexic, the diagrams would easily get mixed up. On the other hand, an extra logical reasoning section could really beat the crap out of you mentally. Wonder what people who have taken both versions think?
tzs · 37m ago
Funny thing about the logic games. I aced that section and enjoyed them.
A few weeks after the test I was looking at the magazine rack at the grocery store, and saw a magazine called "Dell Logic Puzzles". I took a look inside and it was full of the same kind of logic games as on the LSAT, with 5 different difficulty levels.
From the ads in the magazine it was clear that the target audience for this was old ladies.
I bought it figuring that since I had aced those puzzles on the LSAT (and on all my practice tests beforehand) I'd have no trouble with any of the puzzles in the magazine, but the harder ones might provide some mild amusement.
Man was I wrong. I could barely do the level 1 puzzles.
jmogly · 21m ago
Haha, I could imagine. The logic games in the LSAT aren’t particularly “hard” as much as they’re just uncommon. You’re kind of just applying procedural rules, like a human calculator. I suppose if you enjoy it as an activity, the LSAT logic games must be like child’s play.
retskrad · 1h ago
Speaking of these standardised tests, I think it's ridiculous that even for someone like Elon Musk, who read for up to 10 hours a day for most of his of pre college days and learned how to build rockets with the use of books och instruction manuals, only scored 730 on the Math section and 670 on the Verbal section for a total composite score of 1400. The fact that he couldn't get higher score means something is wrong with these tests. They are mirroring a very narrow frequency of aptitude.
Jtsummers · 51m ago
> The fact that he couldn't get higher score means something is wrong with these tests.
Does it? As others pointed out, those aren't bad scores. Not the highest scores, but not embarrassing for a better student.
It could be that his claimed reading time is just that, a claim, and not true. Or the material he was reading wasn't challenging in a way that would help with test prep to get him a higher score.
tzs · 1h ago
Assuming those are SAT scores, at the time Musk would have taken it those scores would be around 90th percentile for math, 75th for verbal, and 92nd for the overall test. That's pretty good.
Aurornis · 1h ago
> only scored 730 on the Math section and 670 on the Verbal section for a total composite score of 1400.
Those numbers are well above average. Good results. I don't know the context but if he didn't prepare much or at all then those results are quite good.
If you expected him to get a perfect score, your expectations might be too high or there might be some hero worship going on.
ghaff · 58m ago
Been a very, very long time. But I expect that getting a top score involved being both "smart" (whatever that means exactly) and having done a ton of prep work.
Wasn't the constitution ratified in 1788?
However, the operation of the Constitution didn't commence until March 1789 [1] [2]. Prior to that commencement, government still operated under the Articles of Confederation. The question is poorly worded, if they're asking for when the federal government began operating under the Constitution; but it's also poorly worded if they're asking for when the ninth state ratified it.
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/420/ [2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
That sums up roughly 95% of daily practice in US trials and appeals!
In 2024 they dropped the analytic reasoning section. Now it just tests logical reasoning and reading comprehension.
A few weeks after the test I was looking at the magazine rack at the grocery store, and saw a magazine called "Dell Logic Puzzles". I took a look inside and it was full of the same kind of logic games as on the LSAT, with 5 different difficulty levels.
From the ads in the magazine it was clear that the target audience for this was old ladies.
I bought it figuring that since I had aced those puzzles on the LSAT (and on all my practice tests beforehand) I'd have no trouble with any of the puzzles in the magazine, but the harder ones might provide some mild amusement.
Man was I wrong. I could barely do the level 1 puzzles.
Does it? As others pointed out, those aren't bad scores. Not the highest scores, but not embarrassing for a better student.
It could be that his claimed reading time is just that, a claim, and not true. Or the material he was reading wasn't challenging in a way that would help with test prep to get him a higher score.
Those numbers are well above average. Good results. I don't know the context but if he didn't prepare much or at all then those results are quite good.
If you expected him to get a perfect score, your expectations might be too high or there might be some hero worship going on.