September 2019 LSAT Breakdown
Welcome to the first in a series of posts in which I analyze an entire LSAT and give my objective assessment as The LSAT Genius. The September 2019 LSAT is an auspicious LSAT to begin the series with because it is historic: it is the first fully digital LSAT in the test’s 71 year history. Lo and behold, the digital test is merely a cosmetic and methodological change, not a substantive one. In fact, the September 2019 LSAT is one of those tests that I consider “average”—it is neither palpably easier nor harder than previous LSATs. LSAC is incredibly talented at producing consistently similar tests across decades. If you were well-prepared for the September 2019 LSAT, then there is no test-related reason you couldn’t have done well.
The 25 question logical reasoning section had a noticeable number of principle questions, but other than that, it was very straightforward. There was the usual mix of scientific and artistic topics that LSAC loves to cover. Main point and role questions have become more subtle and sophisticated in recent years , but those question types in this section were not challenging. The only quibble I have is with question 24. The correct answer involves a violation of etiquette. Well, considering that it’s a weaken question, I would’ve preferred an answer choice that more definitively weakened the argument. It’s still the right answer because the other choices were atrocious, but it doesn’t make me happy to pick the violation of etiquette answer choice.
The 26 question logical reasoning section was mildly harder than the 25 question section. You had a few principle questions to tend to, and the main point and role questions were a little bit harder than the ones in the other section. But all in all, they were all very manageable. Even the flaw and assumption questions were not convoluted. Once again though, another weaken question bothered me: question 22. The right answer purports to weaken the argument because the proportion of teenagers who participate in sports is very different in different societies and time periods. My problem with this answer choice is that it doesn’t really address the nature vs. nurture issue that’s brought up in the argument. It hints at the environment being a factor, but not squarely enough for me to be happy with this answer choice. Once again, it’s still the right answer because the other choices were nowhere near viable.
If anything is going to be a challenge on this LSAT, it’s the logic games section. However, the game types were the usual fare: two ordering games, a grouping game, and one with both ordering and grouping. Nothing unpredictable at all. The main challenge with this games section is that the rules throughout all the games required precise understanding. Particularly for the third flower game, if you got confused with the rules, you could easily get every question wrong. On the other hand, the questions themselves weren’t difficult to answer. There were no tricky rule substitution questions that often foil students.
Other than the rather fluffy comparative passage, the reading comprehension section was as straightforward and easy to understand as can be. There really was no obtuse language and the concepts being discussed were not complicated. Even the questions were exactly the kind of questions you’d expect from the content. With the proper reading comprehension method, this test’s reading comprehension section could’ve been done with time to spare. As a sidenote, I really enjoyed learning about Great Zimbabwe and cholera.
You should not have struggled with the September 2019 LSAT. The hardest section was arguably the logic games section, but the logical reasoning and reading comprehension sections were such standard fare for the LSAT that your score should not have been greatly impacted. If you did struggle with the September 2019 LSAT, then you need to change how you’re preparing for the LSAT.
The LSAT Genius
New York's Best LSAT Tutor, Bar None
The LSAT Genius
Real, practical information without bullshit from New York's Best LSAT Tutor, Bar None.